Paranormal detection

[LightningStrike]

By unfamiliar energy I mean to describe a sensation that has a presence in it.
This could be called an entity and I register that it is not familiar to me. My initial interpretation would be "this is not my self" ie this is someone else's self. So I obviously look around. There could be a body associated with this as in staring or there could be no body to be seen.

My point is that it is unintelligent to doubt this registration of perception that occurs now. I am feeling my substantive reality now. This is the only thing in the whole of my existence that I can be absolutely certain of.

(For me to say that it is not my self is even questionable. But I can say that if I know my self.)

Are there any other factors?

 

[TSR]

I am feeling my substantive reality now. This is the only thing in the whole of my existence that I can be absolutely certain of.

.
... except that you cannot be certain of personal perseptions, since these can be altered by a variety of means both subtle and blantant.
.

 

[dlorde]

By unfamiliar energy I mean to describe a sensation that has a presence in it.

My understanding (and my interpretation of your previous response) is that sensations are the data from the senses, and that we interpret these sensations to model the world, including any unfamiliar 'presences'. Whether the presence is actually in this data or whether we interpret the data as representing a presence is a moot point.

This could be called an entity and I register that it is not familiar to me. My initial interpretation would be "this is not my self" ie this is someone else's self. So I obviously look around. There could be a body associated with this as in staring or there could be no body to be seen.

This should not be surprising, as we seem to be pretty much hard-wired to anthropomorphise around events we perceive, even stochastic and chaotic events - the 'theory of mind' and narrative generator we use to model and predict the behaviour of other people (and creatures) seems to be applied to all kinds of events, without restriction - although our more rational, logical cortical processes can subsequently discredit the less convincing of these interpretations.

Are there any other factors?

Factors? of what?

 

[H3LL]

This thread is rapidly moving away to side topics which reason1 is, apparently, so very delighted to see.

He has demonstrated that every opportunity he has to post about anything other than an acceptable protocol and how he will meet MDC requirements is an opportunity he will take.



reason1 has not, to our knowledge, formally applied for the MDC.

reason1 has not produced an acceptable protocol despite many sensible suggestions.

reason1 has not stated how he is progressing with meeting the MDC requirements of a media profile and an academic affidavit.

reason1 claims to have contacted several media organisations:

reason1 has not stated whether Google have replied yet.

reason1 has not stated whether Rupert Sheldrake got back to him.

reason1 has not stated whether he has had responses from ABC, CBS, CNN, BBC, Discover, Nature, Scientific American and Science News Magazines that he claimed to be contacting.

reason1 has not stated which academic organisation he has contacted, if any.


These and several other critical questions concerning his claim and application have not been answered.

Maybe reason1 will explain why he is not answering?



Instead, he chooses to re-hash stuff that has been covered in some detail over several pages and several months with little change or understanding from his original posts way back in March.

 

[Ashles]

My point is that it is unintelligent to doubt this registration of perception that occurs now. I am feeling my substantive reality now. This is the only thing in the whole of my existence that I can be absolutely certain of.

But your perceptions are unreliable. This is absolutely undeniable. What you perceive does not always reflect reality.

For example if you click on the following link do you think that squares A and B are:
A) Exactly the same colour
B) Different colours

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow/checkershadow_illusion4med.jpg

 

[Denver]

But your perceptions are unreliable. This is absolutely undeniable. What you perceive does not always reflect reality.

For example if you click on the following link do you think that squares A and B are:
A) Exactly the same colour
B) Different colours

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow/checkershadow_illusion4med.jpg

That is one of my favorites.

I still have to open Gimp and verify the hex color values of those two squares. And even then, I still have trouble believing it.

 

[LightningStrike]

Yes that is a good example of the the unreliability of interpretation.
Thank you for that.

I have now had a closer look at what pure perception is.

It is the perception of seeing is happening hearing is happening
feeling is happening. All the senses in reality are absolutely still.
Pure perception is in that stillness.

Is this depth of perception of any real use in day to day life?

It is to me. We all use this depth of perception to reflect on the reality of existence. For example I go outside and see it is a beautiful day. That depth of perception sees the whole thing at once.

 

[Robert Oz]

Yes that is a good example of the the unreliability of interpretation.
Thank you for that.

I have now had a closer look at what pure perception is.

It is the perception of seeing is happening hearing is happening
feeling is happening. All the senses in reality are absolutely still.
Pure perception is in that stillness.

Is this depth of perception of any real use in day to day life?

It is to me. We all use this depth of perception to reflect on the reality of existence. For example I go outside and see it is a beautiful day. That depth of perception sees the whole thing at once.

Yes, we rely on our perceptions to get through life, and for that purpose, our perceptions are great tools. But in order to prove something we believe to be real - especially something that is outside our current understanding of how the real world works - our perceptions are simply not trustworthy and we require external evidence to support what we understand of reality.

Our perceptions tell us the two squares are different shades, but an experiment where we cut the two squares out and compare them side by side on an identical background shows our perceptions to be wrong.

In the same way, reason1's perceptions tell him that he is feeling people stare at him from behind. However, since our understanding of the way the world works tells us this shouldn't be possible, we need evidence that doesn't rely on reason1's perceptions. We need self-evident results. Results where anybody could look at it and say, yes, this is the only way that those results could come about.

 

[Pup]

Is this depth of perception of any real use in day to day life?

It is to me. We all use this depth of perception to reflect on the reality of existence. For example I go outside and see it is a beautiful day. That depth of perception sees the whole thing at once.

Well, it may be "useful," but it's subjective. One person's beautiful day may be too hot, too cold or too windy for another person. A person who just suffered a tragedy may not perceive it as a beautiful day, even if it would normally fit the parameters of that person's definition of beautiful.

So it's only useful to help an individual make his or her own personal subjective decisions, but it's not an absolute quality inherent to the object that everyone must agree on. You can't prove to me that the day is beautiful, any more than I can prove to you that it isn't, but we can grab a thermometer and see whether it's 70 or 80 degrees out.

Unless something can be objectively tested like the temperature, anyone can say "I had a feeling like there was someone staring at me," or whatever, and it doesn't mean there was anyone staring, it just meant the person had a feeling as if there was.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hi LightningStrike, several viable testing protocols have been been suggested here that would probably qualify for the MDC (not R1's for reasons discussed more than fully in this thread). Do you think that you could detect someone staring at you under the test conditions proposed? If so perhaps you could beat R1 to the million dollars (and to those sweet, sweet military contracts....)

 

[Ashles]

Yes that is a good example of the the unreliability of interpretation.
Thank you for that.

I have now had a closer look at what pure perception is.

It is the perception of seeing is happening hearing is happening
feeling is happening. All the senses in reality are absolutely still.
Pure perception is in that stillness.

Again that doesn't mean anything useful.

Is this depth of perception of any real use in day to day life?

You do know people have been researching perception for some years already? You don't have to guess at what perception is, how it operates or what it might be defined as. That's already been done to a great degree.

It is to me. We all use this depth of perception to reflect on the reality of existence. For example I go outside and see it is a beautiful day. That depth of perception sees the whole thing at once.

You are redefining terms yourself that already have agreed meanings.

It would really be worth your while to actually do some research about perception and memory before trying to invent wholesale your own concpept of how it works using meaningless and incorrect terms.

It sounds like what you are referring to is simply your emotional response to stimulus. Which may be relevant to you, but isn't objectively testable or of much real use scientifically.

You may think it is a beautiful day, but someone else experiencing exactly the same thing may hate it. So what use is it to them that you think the day is beautiful?

 

[reason1]

Hi LightningStrike, several viable testing protocols have been been suggested here that would probably qualify for the MDC (not R1's for reasons discussed more than fully in this thread). Do you think that you could detect someone staring at you under the test conditions proposed? If so perhaps you could beat R1 to the million dollars (and to those sweet, sweet military contracts....)

Well, if he can do that then he should go for it. But do you think proving something that is totally unknown to science in the 21st century is going to be that simple?.

 

[Sean84]

Well, if he can do that then he should go for it. But do you think proving something that is totally unknown to science in the 21st century is going to be that simple?.

It would be incredibly simple with several of the protocols suggested... but not yours (the only one you seem to want to discuss). Perhaps you should reread a few and do a self-test based on them to see if you can pull it off that way.

I know if I asked any of my friends to shoot me with a paintball gun they'd jump at the chance so I can't imagine it would be too difficult or time consuming to set up. And for a million bucks you might as well, at the very least it will show you objectively what you CAN'T do.

 

[Robert Oz]

Well, if he can do that then he should go for it. But do you think proving something that is totally unknown to science in the 21st century is going to be that simple?.

If the ability exists, then of course it would be simple.

1. Select any one of a number of suggested protocols provided by other posters.
2. Submit for the Million Dollar Challenge.
3. Pass the preliminary test.
4. Pass the final test.
5. Get involved in thorough research to show the repeatability of the power and to determine the methods by which it works.


If the ability does not exist, then of course it would be far from simple.

 

[Robert Oz]

My claim is simple but unfortunately the conditions are not so simple. I don't want to look like a fool at the test.

I'm not sure about it [Robert Oz's drawing protocol], I'll try to self-test it. And believe me there no reason for me to reject simple protocols if I'm sure that can do it that way.

I think the above two comments strongly indicate that reason1 will never apply for the Million Dollar Challenge. Due to his fear of looking the fool, he will, wherever possible, self-test simple protocols and realise that he cannot detect starers under these controlled conditions.

At the same time, reason1 will refuse to acknowledge that he cannot detect starers at all and, therefore, must invent reasons for failing simple tests (e.g. starers aren't motivated to stare, know they are being used in a test, etc.), which, in fact, have nothing to do with failing the simple tests.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, if he can do that then he should go for it. But do you think proving something that is totally unknown to science in the 21st century is going to be that simple?.

I never said that he had to 'prove something that is totally unknown to science', merely that if he can perform under one of the test protocols that have been proposed by the many people in this thread who attempted to help you, he would probably win the MDC.

The MDC protocol attempts to eliminate (in this case) ordinary sources of information, but it wouldn't 'prove' how the power worked, that would be for the further study that would doubtless follow on from a successful challange.

 

[dlorde]

At the same time, reason1 will refuse to acknowledge that he cannot detect starers at all and, therefore, must invent reasons for failing simple tests (e.g. starers aren't motivated to stare, know they are being used in a test, etc.), which, in fact, have nothing to do with failing the simple tests.

He has already done this even before trying any of the suggested protocols.

 

[Robert Oz]

He has already done this even before trying any of the suggested protocols.

We assume he hasn't done any simple self-testing, but I'm not so sure.

I would not be surprised if reason1 tried some of the simpler protocols by perhaps getting a friend to stare at him from behind at random times and, on realising he could not detect the staring accurately, came back to tell us his power doesn't work that way.

Of course, I have no evidence that he has done this, but I don't see how he could be so sure his power wouldn't work under some of the suggested protocols unless he did some preliminary self-testing.

So, I suppose that's an appropriate question to ask:

reason 1, have you done any preliminary self-testing of some of the early, simple suggestions? If not, how do you know that you can't detect all types of staring rather than just active staring?