• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dr. Colin Ross's challenge

Dr. Ross,
Are you really maintaining, above all else that strains credulity, that the writings of a psychologist, a physicist, and philosopher define the scientific cannon for what is and is not possible within the realm of biology?

By that logic, I could use a 60 year old quote from an archaeologist to prove the official scientific position of black holes.

I haven't seen your particular claim, but I'm thinking a couple things are likely true.

1) You didn't mention the goggles. The use of one modified piece of electronics to activate another is so unlikely to pass as a protocol, you would have been informed.

2) As you seem to believe that the emission from the eyes are somehow distinct from emissions from the rest of the head, your claim was taken to refer to a specific directional, or intentional quality to these emanations.
 
Emanations From the Eye Versus Extramission

This seems to be a disagreement about whether the general category is "extramission" or "emanations from the eye." One convention holds that the general category is emanations from the eye, with sub-beliefs that the emanations are involved in visual perception (extramission theory), the sense of being stared at etc. The second convention holds that extramission is the general category, with sub-beliefs that the emanations are involved in visual perception, the sense of being stared at etc.
The terminology is just a matter of 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.
This seems consistent with Winer. Any emanation "during the act of seeing" is classified as a superstition by Winer. "Emanation" and "extramission" seem to be synonyms to me, with participation in visual perception being only one in a list of "superstitions" about the general category.
Disagreement about whether the general category should be called "emanations from the eye" or "extramission" doesn't affect the fact that Winer, Schrodinger and Toulmin state explicitly that no emanation of any kind exists, therefore no emanation can participate in visual perception, and the sense of being stared must be a superstition, along with stares mixing together etc. I am saying that the general category of emanations is real, and the list of "superstitions" should be regarded as clues to an underlying electrophysiological reality, rather than being dismissed on the grounds that no emanations of any kind exist. This doesn't mean that all sub-beliefs have to be valid or invalid, only that some could be valid, and this is an empirical question. Exploration of those possibilities is shut down by the stigma attached to "investigating the paranormal." This is based on sociology not what "science says" in the abstract.
 
Colin Ross said:
Schrodinger (Nobel Prize in Physics) says in his 1944 book, What Is Life?, that "in reality nothing emerges from the eyes."
Click to expand...

So I could win a million dollar for crying?

That shows how silly it is to take quotes that are speaking in general about a particular phenomenon, and try to stretch them to be the final word for all details, all definitions and all circumstances.
 
Since Dr.Colin Ross likes to quote from other people
here are some selected quotes from his writings:
(Prepare yourself)

http://sites.google.com/site/memoryabuse/quoting-ross

"Why is it scientifically impossible for demons to exist, in a universe characterized by black holes,
neutrinoes, nuclear fission, and the Lorentz contraction?"
C.Ross
M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 125

"I see no reason at all why discarnate spirits should not actually exist, other than the reductionist instistence that all mind must be an epiphenomenon of the brain."
C.Ross M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 125

"It is not possible to understand the nature of the human mind without thinking carefully about demon possession."
C.Ross M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 124

"How can one determine if an entity is an alter or a demon? This question would be dismissd as irrelevent by the vast amjority of psychiatrists and psychologists, and regarded as unscientific. The Evil One taught me otherwise."
C.Ross M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 125

"ESP was rejected because of scientific conservatism in the same way that the stethoscope, smallpox vaccinantions and the circulation of blood were initially rejected by the medical establishment."
C.Ross M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 183

"Serious inquiry as to whether one is in the presence of a demon is considered by mainstream psychiatry as unscientific on the basis of ideological prejudice, not science. The reductionist atheistic bias of modern psychiatry which dismisses the reality of demons is just that, reductionism."
C.Ross M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 125

"In fact, the question of reality of demons has been disregarded by mainstream psychiatry on the same basis as childhood trauma, dissociation, hypnosis, and the paranormal were dismissed in the late nineteenth century."
C.Ross M.D.
The Osiris Complex 1994
page 125
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Colin is on to something. I've been playing about with my ECG circuit and I think I've detected a nipple beam which could be used to make a tone sound when someone looks at porn.

I'm thinking there may be a market for such a device with parents of teenage boys.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Perhaps Colin is on to something. I've been playing about with my ECG circuit and I think I've detected a nipple beam which could be used to make a tone sound when someone looks at porn.
Click to expand...

Okay I've got to see that !
 
Last edited:
Colin Ross said:
"Emanation" and "extramission" seem to be synonyms to me, with participation in visual perception being only one in a list of "superstitions" about the general category.
Click to expand...

I think that is mostly correct. I think science would agree that the beliefs that emanations or extramissions from eyes can “cast spells” or “transmit love or emotion” or result in being able to see or being able to sense when you are being stared at are a bunch of woo.

Colin Ross said:
I am saying that the general category of emanations is real, and the list of "superstitions" should be regarded as clues to an underlying electrophysiological reality, rather than being dismissed on the grounds that no emanations of any kind exist.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards again. Science does not say:

1. There are absolutely no emissions from the eyes.
2. Therefore, people cannot sense when they are being stared at.

Science simply says there is no proof that people can sense when they are being stared at (other than by normal means of the five senses).

Science, and I think everyone in this forum, is saying that emanations (such as IR and EEG) ARE REAL. Nobody is disputing that. The difference between science and paranormal is what those small emissions actually DO. Science says they don’t do much. Yes, they can be detected with equipment. But science says that those emissions do not transmit emotion or allow people to be able to sense being stared at.

Paranormal:

There ARE NO emanations or extramissions from the eye (that result in vision).
There ARE NO emanations or extramissions from the eye (that cast spells).
There ARE NO emanations or extramissions from the eye (that transmit emotion).
There ARE NO emanations or extramissions from the eye (that allow people to sense being stared at)).

Science:

There ARE emanations or extramissions from the eye (that can be detected by technical equipment).
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Science:

There ARE emanations or extramissions from the eye (that can be detected by technical equipment).
Click to expand...

Not in the sense that extramissions mean "emissions from the eye that are necessary for visual perception to occur." as stated by Plato and Euclid.
I never heard this BS before, as my grandfather was an optometrist and my father was an optician, and it was well known that vision entirely depended upon light entering the eye. Or a poke on the side of the eyeball.
I knew as a kid that Superman's Xray vision was science fiction.
 
Response To Devil's Advocate

Thanks for laying that out clearly.
I see a difference between "what science says," which is the actual procedures of science, and "what scientists say," which is often mistaken, political, subject to personal bias etc. An example would be all the flack the Australian doctor who discovered that 90% of stomach ulcers are caused by H. pylori took - this certainly wasn't a "paranormal finding" but the reaction he got from what he called "the acid mafia" was far from rational discourse. Then eventually it all became accepted science that everyone agreed with.
OK, so we agree that there are emanations from the eye, and agree not to quibble about whether they should be referred to as emanations or extramissions. We agree that there are at least the four examples of "paranormal claims" that you list, one of which is "the theory of extramission."

According to the JREF, making a tone sound out of a speaker using emanations from your eye is also a claim of the paranormal. It was adescribed as such by the JREF in the summer of 2008, after I submitted a detailed protocol describing the Brainmaster equipment being used, the fact that it was delta waves, and the fact that a non-contact electrode was being used. In April, 2009 I was given the Pigasus Award for the claim which James Randi described as being awarded to "The scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing related to the supernatural, paranormal or occult" in 2008. In a Swift article, again subsequent to my submitting a detailed protocol, James Randi wrote, "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. . ."

Note that the JREF was not saying that it had been tricked by deceptive wording. The JREF was saying that my detailed was protocol in which I specified EEG equipment, delta waves etc. was paranormal, silly, irrational, preposterous and astonishing.
So, there seems to be disagreement between the JREF and Devil's Advocate as to whether making a tone sound out of a speak using emanations from the eye is paranormal or not.
 
Colin Ross said:
Thanks for laying that out clearly.
I see a difference between "what science says," which is the actual procedures of science, and "what scientists say," which is often mistaken, political, subject to personal bias etc. An example would be all the flack the Australian doctor who discovered that 90% of stomach ulcers are caused by H. pylori took - this certainly wasn't a "paranormal finding" but the reaction he got from what he called "the acid mafia" was far from rational discourse. Then eventually it all became accepted science that everyone agreed with.
Click to expand...
Do not try to equate your quackery with the hard work of Dr. Warren. He PROVED his claim by evidence and received a Nobel Price for it.

Why don't you do what you are claiming without all the deception?
 
Colin Ross said:
... and the fact that a non-contact electrode was being used.
Click to expand...

But you are still using contact electrodes as well. The reference and ground leads are still physically touching your body. If you truly can send an electromagnetic signal via your eye, then you don't need any physical contact between you and the detector.

Do you see radios with long wires connecting them to the transmitter miles away? No. Do you see people with cell phones trailing cables behind them as they walk? Of course not. The whole point of these devices is that they are wireless. They pick out electromagnetic radiation from the air. If they don't need wires then why do you? Could it be because you don't actually understand the first thing about what you're doing?
 
Colin Ross said:
In April, 2009 I was given the Pigasus Award for the claim which James Randi described as being awarded to "The scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing related to the supernatural, paranormal or occult" in 2008. In a Swift article, again subsequent to my submitting a detailed protocol, James Randi wrote, "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. . ."

....

The JREF was saying that my detailed was protocol in which I specified EEG equipment, delta waves etc. was paranormal, silly, irrational, preposterous and astonishing.

So, there seems to be disagreement between the JREF and Devil's Advocate as to whether making a tone sound out of a speak using emanations from the eye is paranormal or not.
Click to expand...
Not really, because you are the person who added the word "paranormal" to that quote by Randi. In other words, you quite obviously lied, right there in front of God and everybody. Can you not tell when you are being laughed at and insulted?

And you keep going back to your Pigasus Award as if it were a GOOD thing that you won it. Are you really that detached from reality or do you simply believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity? And a Pigasus Award is REALLY BAD publicity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom