They will likely never get the replication science demands, let’s move on

[DMJessup]

R.G. Jahn – 2005

“Over recent years, a sizeable spectrum of evidence has been brought forth from reputable laboratories in several disciplines to suggest that at times human consciousness can acquire information inaccessible by any known physical mechanism (ESP), and can influence the behavior of physical systems or processes (PK), but even the most rigorous and sophisticated of these studies display a characteristic dilemma: The experimental results are rarely replicable in the strict scientific sense, but the anomalous yields are well beyond chance expectations and a number of common features thread through the broad range of reported effects. Various attempts at theoretical modeling have so far shown little functional value in explicating experimental results, but have served to stimulate fundamental re-examination of the role of consciousness in the determination of physical reality. Further careful study of this formidable field seems justified, but only within the context of very well conceived and technically impeccable experiments of large data-base capability, with disciplined attention to the pertinent aesthetic factors, and with more constructive involvement of the critical community.”

[DMJessup]

I will reply to my own post this time. We need more constructive involvement of the Psi community, those with skills.
We should also realize how hypocritical science has become. They can measure a one-time gravitational wave, and have a one-time particle appear in the particle accelerator, both are things that they can’t repeat, and these one-time examples are sufficient for them, even when they can’t replicate it. Science can’t really define gravity. Science can precisely describe and calculate the effects of gravity, but it cannot yet define what gravity is in a fundamental, comprehensive way. While Einstein’s general theory of relativity defines it as the curvature of spacetime, and quantum theory searches for particles like gravitons, a definitive, unified theory remains elusive. Results are all that really matter in Psi testing, and we have evidence and veridical evidence of plenty of results. So what if we lack theories that satisfy current science? We all need to move beyond this nonsense mentality and show what we can do, when we can do it, and what we require to do it. And then, our scientists need to start listening to us and stop with the echo chamber nonsense discussions. ‘Circular or echo chamber discussions, where viewpoints are reinforced and opposing views are excluded, are primarily called echo chambers. Other common terms include filter bubbles (algorithm-driven insulation), epistemic bubbles (omission of opposing voices), or colloquially, circle jerks. These environments create insulated, polarized, or “homogenized” communication.’
Ask us how to design the correct experiments. Go ahead.

[Tom Butler]

We have noted for Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC)–sometimes Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP)–that research should be conducted with practitioners who have an established ability to (more likely) record examples. It is common practice for such abilities as mental mediumship and remote viewing to seek “experts” for studies.

I explored this question in “Failure to Replicate Fallacy.” An example of how using students to collect examples of EVP is “Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon” Written by Imants Barušs, Department of Psychology, King’s College, University of Western Ontario. Published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 355–367, 2001. I discuss it here.

James Carpenter discusses a different kind of replication problem in his book, “First Sight Theory.” The practitioner’s temperament is a major determinant in the ability to consciously access Psi. I have experienced this with EVP in that my wife Lisa holds a BA in psychology and is a competent EVP practitioner. I am an engineer, and while I do record the occasional EVP, my Class A examples are seldom. She is a much better medium and is good with people. Me … not so much.

My point is that you are correct in questioning the replication standard of science. EVP is probably one of the most often conducted “experiments,” yet research into EVP has lagged, I think, because qualified researchers do not recognize the human factor.

To make my point, at a private gathering after speaking at a Forever Family Foundation conference, Lisa and I was asked to record for EVP. We did not succeed in even a Class C example. It is reasonable to think that all of those representatives of various parts of the paranormalist community left with the assumption that EVP is imaginary.

[DMJessup]

We might add that an additional human factor appears to be the ability to cancel Psi phenomena just by being present. Observers who are skeptical, or negative, can and do totally disrupt many experiments. I like to think that the natural flow of time and space, the physical world as it exists, is the grounding force that might silence Psi. Being aligned with that, and having your own personal filters, locks, and block systems engaged, appears to silence anything outside of this state. Perhaps it is because they are aligned with a more powerful force, that of Earth time and space itself, and the mentality that goes hand-in-hand with it?
At the same time, I have noted that some people, whether they experience psi or not, appear to amplify psi phenomena when they are in my presence. So people are key, all-around, whether blocking or enhancing. I do wish there was something more obvious about either direction so we could include or exclude the proper subjects to enhance and block phenomena, proving once and for all that people are the key ingredient to all of this.
Since you do EVP, have you tried to replicate the Scole germanium receiver?

[Tom Butler]

The Scole Diode is a novel technique for producing background noise suitable for EVP. From our studies, the active component in the recording process is a nonlinear stage found in the recorder circuitry. That is why we think stochastic resonance is one of the factors … not the source or cause, but part of the Psi-physical interface.

Consistent with what you said is Walter von Lucadou’s research as reported in ““Predictions of The Model of Pragmatic Information About RSPK”” That is also in agreement with the our studies indicating that the practitioner or an interested observer provides the conduit for the influence of intended order.

[DMJessup]

Well Tom, it certainly appears that you are getting closer to outlining the necessary ingredients. Do the voices ever have any explanations, or are they helpful, or just the usual odd conversations? I think one of the things that bothered me the most about EVP was that, from the people or entities communicating, we don’t get better question and answer sessions. In my opinion, which has no merit except as an observer, this would promote the idea that motivation and intellect are warped or gone, and some odd form of survival remains. I just don’t see it as a complete edition of the human abilities to reason and think, or to act and interact properly or with volition. I suppose I would have 101 questions about what fuels that form of existence, the nature of thoughts and feelings, memory, and the place(s) they exist and function in. I was quite peeved at some of these accounts where, as soon as the questions get technical or in-depth, they stop communicating. I’m also not a huge fan of these alien nonsense connections and the false predictions, like Major Ed Dames and the Killshot nonsense that drove many people to create bunkers. In those cases, I believe the psychotic issues are what is talking, which is then fabricated hallucination garbage and false data. Have you figured out a way to separate the possible alter-consciousness communication from actual entity?

[Tom Butler]

Your comments and questions are on point. As I have said, ITC has taught us that the practitioner or an interested observer provides the conduit for the influence of intended order. That is a shorthand way of saying that formation of ITC appears to be the expression of intended order. That intention is moderated by someone’s worldview. Our experience has been that:

> Content of ITC examples is bound by what is considered true by the practitioner.
> When the person speaking in an EVP is recognized in voice, appropriate response and attitude, that familiarity may come from the practitioner. Consider Martha Copeland’s communication with her daughter. We all hear them as she reports. Cathy has shown up in some of our EVP, as well, but we had previously learned from Martha what Cathy sounds like. It does appear that a separate personality has initiated the EVP, especially the “Dojo no!” example, but Martha’s worldview may be shaping the speech from memory. https://atransc.org/copeland-evp/.
> There is a strong “sounds right” tone in the information in EVP. There are exceptions, such as the unexpected “Please don’t come” and “The Death Knell” at https://atransc.org/evp-tom-lisa-butler/.
Also see “The Raudive Device” Page 5 of https://atransc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/29-1-Spring-2010-ATransC-NewsJournal.pdf. In that, the microphone in a vacuum instruction from a channeled personality by way of a physical medium was clearly a “sounds right” idea out of the medium’s worldview.

Psi studies science might need to be based on the agreement amongst many forms of Psi phenomena. Any one is inconclusive. Our rules of evidence include the idea that first person accouints are not useful evidence. They may be about actual principles but without collaborating phenomena, they can only be interesting. That makes OBE, NDE and mental mediumship supportive but not evidence in themselves.

The task of the parapsychologists is to stop collecting evidence and begin formulating models that can be tested via their predictive quality. If the community cannot agree on a model, then it is not ready to theorize.

[DMJessup]

“The task of the parapsychologists is to stop collecting evidence and begin formulating models that can be tested via their predictive quality. If the community cannot agree on a model, then it is not ready to theorize.”
I’m not a parapsychologist and feel like I’m closer to actual hypotheses/theories than most of them that keep repeating the same experiments over and over. I’m more into using Psi to study Psi, and finding the data that crosses between physical (like EVP) and whatever the complicated systems end up being. In all cases, the skilled practitioner is a key ingredient to phenomena, and everyone is a key ingredient to blocking, filtering, or coloring phenomena. That alone tells us so much about the system we are looking at. I’m chewing on the idea of A.I. helping to peel back the bias and compile enough common repetitive data to be able to state, for A to happen, B must exist. When we have enough B items, that has to define the rules of engagement. Then, we peel back the known rules of physics, and that strips all other possibilities away, what is left has to be the complicated source systems involved in various aspects of Psi phenomena, and these don’t have to be the same cause or source, even for the same Psi phenomena. We could easily be dealing with multiple systems that only appear to be related. Like existing after death, which could include many different formats, and doesn’t have to be one-size fits all. Some folks could dissipate into nothing, other reincarnate, others move to some other plane or life, etc. I think all of us would like to assume things are one-and-done. In EVP, I can imagine you have entertained the many possible things, from some entity, to a deceased person, to some mental or telepathic event, to picking up random whatever, and likely more. Just having ratings for them shows categorization and quality measures… anyway, thanks for the conversation and feedback.

[Author]

Posts