Who's Staring (At Rupert Sheldrake) ?

Interesting Ian said:


Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.
Click to expand...

As I am not the brightest firework in the display, could someone please confirm that this statement makes no sense whatsoever ?

Much obliged,

AC.
 
asthmatic camel said:


As I am not the brightest firework in the display, could someone please confirm that this statement makes no sense whatsoever ?

Much obliged,

AC.
Click to expand...

No that doesn't make sense. I can't find where I said this though. I think I'm referring to people getting better when they get feedback and there are an equal number of staring and non-staring trials (hence structured randomness). The staring trials improve but the non-staring trials don't.
 
Interesting Ian said:


No that doesn't make sense. I can't find where I said this though. I think I'm referring to people getting better when they get feedback and there are an equal number of staring and non-staring trials (hence structured randomness). The staring trials improve but the non-staring trials don't.
Click to expand...

For your information Ian....

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is no patterns anymore than when guessing each colour card from a randomly shuffled deck of cards. But if the initial 5 cards are all black, then there would be slightly more probability that the next card would be red.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!" LOL

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because the effectiveness of ESP is tied up with emotion and empathy? Why is that not possible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of any further assistance,

Regards,

AC.
 
asthmatic camel said:


For your information Ian....

Interesting Ian quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
But even if I can tell psychically when someone is staring at me, pattern learning should still occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is no patterns anymore than when guessing each colour card from a randomly shuffled deck of cards. But if the initial 5 cards are all black, then there would be slightly more probability that the next card would be red.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If I don't feel that I'm being stared at, then I'll say I'm not. Both types of trials should improve.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But they don't. And I disagree that people will equally feel when they're not being stared at as they feel when they are being stared at. Does anyone ever get the feeling "you know I could swear no-one is looking at me!" LOL

Anyway, since both staring and non-staring trials do not improve, but only the staring trials do, this suggests that the positive results are not due to the structured randomness.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The same is true in the telephone telepathy experiments. The callees did much better when their familiars called than when someone else called. Regardless of how they were telling who called, why didn't they do better with unfamiliars?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because the effectiveness of ESP is tied up with emotion and empathy? Why is that not possible?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of any further assistance,

Regards,

AC.
Click to expand...


Yes I made an error. But I was drunk so don't get too euphoric.
 
I just got Sheldrake's book in the mail today. Ian (or anyone else who finished the thing), is there anything I should be reading first, to get up to speed on this, or should I just wade through it? (I am looking forward to it, but hey, any shortcut is welcome)
 
Am I the only person who finds the idea of a grown man sitting in a room tossing a coin and then either staring or not staring at someone else just a touch ludicrous ?

Funny old world isn't it ?

Regards,

AC.
 
Mercutio said:
I just got Sheldrake's book in the mail today. Ian (or anyone else who finished the thing), is there anything I should be reading first, to get up to speed on this, or should I just wade through it? (I am looking forward to it, but hey, any shortcut is welcome)
Click to expand...

I've only got about half through it so far. I'm reading 3 books at once at the moment :) Just read it through as it comes. We'll compare our thoughts perhaps when we both finish the book?
 
asthmatic camel said:
Am I the only person who finds the idea of a grown man sitting in a room tossing a coin and then either staring or not staring at someone else just a touch ludicrous ?

Funny old world isn't it ?

Regards,

AC.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly is not ludicrous is it? If people can really have some sort of awareness when they are being stared at, the implications could scarcely be more earth shattering.
 
Interesting Ian said:


Well it certainly is not ludicrous is it? If people can really have some sort of awareness when they are being stared at, the implications could scarcely be more earth shattering.
Click to expand...

Ian, imagine this scenario...

A party, somewhere,

Hi, I'm Rupert, I toss coins, stare and don't stare at people and then write books about how earth shattering it is.

Sounds pretty ludicrous to me.

Regards,

AC.
 
AC said:
Am I the only person who finds the idea of a grown man sitting in a room tossing a coin and then either staring or not staring at someone else just a touch ludicrous ?
Click to expand...
And what happens if the starer thinks about the staree but looks the other way? Or looks at the staree but thinks "I am not looking at you"? Will it work if the starer is blind?

Ian said:
Well it certainly is not ludicrous is it? If people can really have some sort of awareness when they are being stared at, the implications could scarcely be more earth shattering.
Click to expand...
I agree. Wake me up when the earth begins to shatter from one of these many earth-shattering paranormal claims.

~~ Paul
 
Interesting Ian said:


I've only got about half through it so far. I'm reading 3 books at once at the moment :) Just read it through as it comes. We'll compare our thoughts perhaps when we both finish the book?
Click to expand...
I'm only on the introduction right now (about page 12) and I'm already wanting to pull my hair out. The good news is, from the things that he is saying that I am irritated with, I cannot imagine a better person to discuss the book with than you.

I do have a specific question for you, but I want to hold off in case he explains something a bit better after the introduction.
 
Anyone who believes this crap...

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/staring/

This idea is so staggeringly simple that it is hard to grasp. Although in perfect accord with immediate experience, it undermines everything we have been brought up to believe about the nature of the mind, the interiority of subjective experience, and the separation of subject and object. Instead of the usual assumption that vision involves a one-way process, it implies a two-way process. As well as light coming into the eyes, images and perceptions are projected outwards through our eyes into the world around us.
Click to expand...

...is no scientist and doesn't deserve a dime of grant money.

The idea is simple, all right, but not in the sense Sheldrake thinks it is.
 
I've spent a few days re-evalutaing Sheldrake's research and have come to the conclusion that he may be on to something. Some doctors have suggested that I am insane, others have been more understanding and prescribed psychoactive drugs.

Occasionally I feel that I am being stared at. More often I feel devastatingly depressed because no-one is taking the time to stare at me. Heartless bastards.

Regards,

AC.
 
Sheldrake informs me that they have checked into the idea that the callee can tell who the caller is by the difference on their clocks. They looked at the times on the videotapes and "This should enable any bias of any particular callers to show up. In fact it turned out that this was not a serious problem and did not invalidate the results."

He agrees that they should randomize the call times in the future.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom