Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

[tesscaline]

I don't claim to understand the electrical engineering details of EEG equipment. I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist.

And yet, you think its a good idea to modify electrical equipment, and then connect that electrical equipment to your body?

I doubt that you could find many neurologists who read EEGs clinically who understand the electrical engineering in any detail, similarly for cardiologists who read EKGs.

But those neurologists are not modifying the hardware, so it's not necessary for them to have the training to be able to. You, on the other hand, ARE modifying the hardware -- and yet you fully admit that you do not have the necessary knowledge or training to be qualified to do so. This seems rather foolhardy, at best.

And now, admitting that you do not have the knowledge or training to make modifications to the hardware, and admitting that you know very little about EEG in general (ooh you took a 4 day course and read a text book, did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express too?), you expect people to believe that the results you're seeing are due to some paranormal thing, or currently unexplained scientific phenomena? When you (admittedly, mind you) don't even have the necessary expertise to understand what on earth it is that you've done, or what it means? When other people who do have the necessary expertise and training have told you, numerous times, that what you're seeing is neither paranormal nor scientifically unexplained?

This is akin to someone messing around with the electronics in a standard FM radio, and then claiming that the static which results is actually the dead talking to them.

 

[Toke]

This is akin to someone messing around with the electronics in a standard FM radio, and then claiming that the static which results is actually the dead talking to them.

Here is a link on the subject.

 

[Roma]

Here is a link on the subject.

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP)

Okay Toke how did you find out about that.

The only place I've ever heard about EVP was on the radio program
Coast to Coast AM, my favorite late night go to sleep radio program.

Wait a minute....that's the same radio program that Dr.Colin Ross used
as the "media exposure" necessary for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge.

Sometime around early August 2008 I remember listening to Coast to Coast AM and hearing my
old psychiatrist Dr.Colin Ross talking about his eye beams of energy.

What a small and wacky world we live in


http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

 

[MRC_Hans]

I never used the verb "shooting" in my application. I said I could "send" an energy beam out of my eyes.
EM radiation is clearly a form of energy.

It is, yes.

The reason I postulate that it is a "beam" is because the brainwaves do not have to pass through the skull when they emerge through the eye, plus the optic nerve terminal is at the back of the retina, plus the geometry of the skull could contribute,

No, that is entirely unsupported. The wavelength of this radiation is very long, in the kilometer range, so little details in skull geometry will have no influence on the distribution.

plus there could be an effect from conscious focusing and intention, all of which would make the amplitude of the emission through the eyes greater than the general field emerging through the skull.

Entirely unsupported. Even if a person might be able to focus brain activity to certain areas (and this is quite possible), it should not favor the eyes. The whole of the head is an excellent conductor for the frequencies in question (50-500Hz), and the signal strength, if it varies at all, will simply be strongest at the surfaces closest to the active brain areas.

I am measuring EM radiation because that's what EEG equipment detects and because any heat emission through the eyes would be disipated quickly in the atmosphere and could not provide a postulated mechanism for the sense of being stared at. ELF has a very low attenuation and therefore could potentially be detected at ecologically relevant distances.

That is not a sound assumption. While ELF does have a somewhat lower attenuation than IR, it is very difficult to pick up, because any detectors that are of less than huge physical size will pick up an extremely high-impedance signal. And since the human body is very small compared to the wavelength, and has quite low impedance, it is a very inefficient antenna for ELF. In contrast, the skin easily absorbs IR, and we do actually have receptors that can sense it, so the transmission way is so much more beneficial for IR that I suspect the break-even range is at such distances that any talk of reception is ridiculous anyway.

Let me finally point out that if your claim is that we have a sense of being stared at, it appears dishonest of you to file a claim that does not directly support that claim. It would also be contrary to the JREF rules, which explicitly state that hypotheses of underlying mechanisms are not interesting. Thus, if you will really show 'sense of being stared at' you cannot fulfill the requirements for the MDC by showing an underlying mechanism that may or may not support the claim. You will instead have to show that people can in fact detect if they are stared at.

Hans

 

[tesscaline]

Here is a link on the subject.

You know, thats exactly the woo I was thinking of when I wrote my post Thanks for picking up on it

 

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks for the Lilienfeld reference - I just ordered the book. From the Table of Contents it looks like they are saying extramission in any form is disallowed.
A non-contact device that can be moved around the head, or any other part of the body, is part of my second US patent application, which should be posted on the US Patent Office web page in June.

Your use of terms is non-conventional.

Nothing in science is 'disallowed'. Extramission is not 'disallowed', it has been ruled aout as improbable.

'Extramission' is not 'any energy emission from the eyeballs'. Anybody with even a cursory knowledge of physics will realize that there is an emission if IR from the eyes, and probably also ELF from the brain activity. This however, is not 'extramission' since it plays no part in the faculty of sight.

'Extramission' is defined as an emission that constitutes or aids in the sense of vision.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

On August 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM (12 days prior to Steven Novella commenting on my initial protocol) I emailed James Randi saying:

After doing further testing, I have satisfied myself concerning two points:
1. There is definitely an EM beam emerging from the eyes that has higher amplitude and distinct electrophysiological properties compared to the field emerging through the forehead.
2. The tone in my neurofeedback system is being triggered by eye blink artifact not by the EEG signal.

I need to do more work on modifying my system to eliminate movement artifact before I can do the preliminary test. This will most likely require a higher impedance electrode and may take a few weeks to a few months. I will get back to you in that time frame.
My goal is to set up a system where artifact can be ruled out to our joint satisfaction.
Thanks.

I submitted a revised protocol on October 15, 2008 and a further revision in February, 2009. My initial submission to the JREF was made on June 6, 2008. By August, 2008, within two months of the JREF receiving my initial Challenge, I had already informed the JREF of the fact that I was detecting an EM signal using neurofeedback equipment. The fact that the initial protocol was based on eye blink artifact was something I brought to the attention of the JREF, not the other way around.

The following is professional advice to the JREF (I'm a qualified Electronic Engineer):

The claim stated above may, while not very likely, turn out to be more or less correct. It will, however, not in any way constitute anything paranormal. Instead, it will be a normal physical effect, and a possibly hitherto undiscovered detail in out already comprehensive understanding of bio electrics.

It does in no way constitute a discovery of 'extramission', and even if it did, it would still not be paranormal.

I am willing to forward the above declaration to you in writing, with my signature, but you might prefer to consult a qualified professional near you.

Best regards, Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

After some initial emailing to Alison Smith and James Randi in mid-2008, I have been following James Randi's instruction to communicate with Alison Smith. The initial Challenge materials were sent to the JREF by physical mail.

Note that I do not claim to be an electroencephalographer or neurologist, but as I understand it, standard surface EEG recordings involve an active and a reference electrode. That's how the hardware and software work throughout the field. That's how the Brainmaster equipment I purchased works and that's how I was taught to use it by the author of a textbook on neurofeedback. I think that for the JREF Challenge, it is best to stick as close as possible to standard technology, not counting the non-contact high-impedance electrode - this provides the JREF and critics the best chance to understand and critique the protocol, I think.

There is nothing paranormal in EEG. How can you propose to enter the MDC by measuring EEG?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

(My bolding). This, sir, is where you go wrong. Extramission is per definition involved in visual perception. Any radiation originating in the eyes (like the well-known IR emission) which does not play a role in visual perception is NOT extramission. No sane scientist would claim that there is no emission from the eyes, as anybody with an IR camera can easily see that this is wrong.

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).

However, the MDC does not concern itself with underlying machanisms, and the mechanism you propose is not paranormal, it is not even unknown by science.

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.

The radiation you propose to detect is not extramission.

Hans

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

For those interested there's a group on the web here working on DIY EEG equipment. For the qualified, there's some good links to articles on input stage design and active electrodes.

 

[Toke]

You know, thats exactly the woo I was thinking of when I wrote my post Thanks for picking up on it

Roma: Okay Toke how did you find out about that.

My parents had a dictionary of woothe occult, I read it as a kid.
There were one in the high school library too, it provided great amusement to me and a few friends.

 

[Colin Ross]

JREF Challenge Versus Science

It seems like everyone is getting close to having said everything they have to say at this point. At least, I am.
For the JREF Challenge, it is the fact that the JREF has accepted my Challenge as a claim of the paranormal and moved into the negotiation of protocol phase that counts. All theories and mechanisms are irrelevant to the challenge by JREF rules - all that counts is demonstrating the phenomeenon.
For science, what counts is peer review. I agree that demonstrating something scientifically automatically means it is not "paranormal" - but that is my point (outside the Challenge and its rules). Some things are incorrectly classified as paranormal. What is "paranormal" at any time is a matter of opinion, culture, attitude, the state of science at the time, and many other factors. "Paranormal" is a socially constructed category. As far as the definition of extramission is concerned, as I see it, there are two components: an emission of any kind, and whether the emission is involved in visual perception. It looks to me like both are disallowed by Toulmin, Winer, Schrodinger and others. But again, this is theory and definition of terms that lies outside the JREF Challenge rules and procedures.

 

[Toke]

Have you checked what percentage of claims make it past the negotiation of test protocol?

 

[MRC_Hans]

It seems like everyone is getting close to having said everything they have to say at this point. At least, I am.
For the JREF Challenge, it is the fact that the JREF has accepted my Challenge as a claim of the paranormal and moved into the negotiation of protocol phase that counts. All theories and mechanisms are irrelevant to the challenge by JREF rules - all that counts is demonstrating the phenomeenon.

Not quite. The MDC rules clearly state that even if your supposedly paranormal demonstration should be later shown to have a scientific (and hence non-paranormal) explanation, you have still won the prize.

Obviously, this clause only applies to a post hoc discovery of a scientific explanation. In your case, however, the explanation is not post hoc. It already exists and is available.

That the JREF has apparantly initially acknowledged your claim as paranormal does not necessarily bind them to go through with your challenge, once it becomes clear that it is in fact not paranormal.

The protocol negotiations have the purpose of ensuring that no mundane methods are used. Even if the application has initially been accepted, once your non-paranormal methods have been ruled put, there will be no test left, and your protocol will be at a dead end.

Hans

 

[fls]

It seems like everyone is getting close to having said everything they have to say at this point. At least, I am.
For the JREF Challenge, it is the fact that the JREF has accepted my Challenge as a claim of the paranormal and moved into the negotiation of protocol phase that counts. All theories and mechanisms are irrelevant to the challenge by JREF rules - all that counts is demonstrating the phenomeenon.

You think that you have tricked Randi into accepting a normal claim. What you fail to realize is that he won't accept a protocol which hasn't excluded all normal means of obtaining the effect. The protocol will not reflect whether or not you can shoot energy out of your eyes. It will reflect whether or not you can shoot energy out of your eyes once all normal sources of energy have been eliminated.

Most applicants state their claim in a way that has the potential to be normal if performed in a way that includes normal activity, rather than excluding normal activity. For example, Rosemary Hunter can make people urinate through normal means (an achingly full bladder will eventually escape the control of the subject), Pavel can tell which photo has been placed within an envelope without seeing the photo if someone has placed an identifying mark on the outside, Natal'ya Vorotnikova can identify a box containing a Russian man among 20 without by simply having the man call out.

Yes, you can make a tone sound from a speaker. But since it is clear you are doing this through normal means, a protocol which depends upon these normal means will not be accepted by Randi. However, I suspect that you realize this already.

I thought at the start of this thread that you were simply trying to fraudulently relieve Randi of his million dollars. But because of the additional information which has been presented, I now suspect that you are hoping to use this for your benefit in some other way. I hope that our scrutiny will somehow thwart these attempts.

Linda

 

[MRC_Hans]

As far as the definition of extramission is concerned, as I see it, there are two components: an emission of any kind, and whether the emission is involved in visual perception.

You are mistaken. 'Extramission' is not a term normally used for any kind of emission or transmission. In fact, despite over 40 years of experience in electronics and radio communication, I had to look it up, having never encountered it before.

It turns out that the only references to the term I could find pointed to a form of active vision, like used in RADAR. So 'extramission' obviously refers to a putative mode of vision.

The references you mention are all from an era where electromagnetics were far from fully explored, so it is perhaps not surprising that they are not entirely clear. It may even be that the authors were unaware of the possibility of emissions unrelated to vision, but this is really also irrelevant to the discussion of extramission versus intramission.

For your case, at best the definition may be said to be unclear. This must mean that you must first agree on a clear definition. It certainly cannot mean that another party is forced to accept any definition you arbitrarily choose.



Hans

 

[Cavemonster]

It looks to me like both are disallowed by Toulmin, Winer, Schrodinger and others. But again, this is theory and definition of terms that lies outside the JREF Challenge rules and procedures.

Also worth noting, aside from the fact that they were referring to extramission as a mechanism for vision, as has already been pointed out, these three are not biologists. What they say about what the eye may and may not do, or any part of the body certainly doesn't establish the cannon for all of science.

There is another thread here that documents types of wrong. This is what could be called fractal wrong. Wrong as a whole and on every level of detail too.

 

[Colin Ross]

Definition of Extramission

Schrodinger (Nobel Prize in Physics) says in his 1944 book, What Is Life?, that "in reality nothing emerges from the eyes."
Toulimin says in his 1953 book, The Philosophy of Science, that ""his eyes swept the horizon". . . 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 antenaae made of?" can be asked only frivolously."
Winer (American Psychologist, 1996) says,"This extramission theory stressed that there were emanations from the eyes during the act of seeing." "Piaget (1926/1929) first suggested that children believe in visual extramissions when he noted a child expressing the idea that looks mix when they meet, a comment which seems to suggest that emanations from the eyes of two people who are looking at each other make contact and mix together." "One idea that occured to us is that extramission notions are related to other superstitions about emanations from the eyes. For centuries, for example, it has been supposed that the eye casts spells or transmits love or emotion. Also, Titchener and others in the history of psychology have studied beliefs that people can feel stares of an unseen other. . . Only when we specfically asked participants about extramission in the context of the feeling-stares questions, that is, when we asked about whether rays or the like go out of the eyes of a starer, were there correlations between a belief in feeling stares and a belief in extramissions."

Two complete Winer papers plus the Toulmin and Schrdodinger quotes were included in my initial submission to the JREF. It seems clear to me that Winer, Toulimin and Schrodinger are saying that no "rays" or "emanations" or "emissions" of any kind emerge from the eyes. Winer is saying that the general phenomenon of extramission is a superstition, as are the sub-beliefs that extramission plays a role in visual perception, looks can mix, emotions can be transmitted out of the eyes, and it is possible to feel someone staring at you. All of these sub-beliefs are "superstitions" because the belief in emissions of any kind is a superstition. None of these authors make any qualifying statements about some types of emission existing in reality.

Whether the JREF proceeds to an initial test remains to be seen.
I already stated the intellectual point of my Challenge - some things are incorrectly categorized as paranormal.

 

[zooterkin]

Are you really as stupid as you are presenting yourself here? You seem to be focussing on 60 year old texts, and even then, you are ignoring what they actually say. For example: Winer (American Psychologist, 1996) says,"This extramission theory stressed that there were emanations from the eyes during the act of seeing." Extramission, by definition, refers to emanations from the eyes that are needed for the act of seeing. I'm not sure why you choose not to respond to this point that has been explained more than once.

Which, as has also been stated before several times in this thread, is irrelevant, anyway. If you are claiming that you can tell when someone is looking at you, then set up a protocol for testing that claim. Stop messing around with electrical equipment you clearly don't understand before you hurt yourself.

 

[fls]

Whether the JREF proceeds to an initial test remains to be seen. I already stated the intellectual point of my Challenge - some things are incorrectly categorized as paranormal.

I don't believe you. The fraudulent nature of your claims were exposed long ago, so your continued insistence on defending this position cannot reflect whether or not others are incorrectly categorizing some things as paranormal. It has to reflect your own desire to defend a fraudulent claim.

Linda