XPost: alt.paranormal.channeling   
   From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:29:46 -0700, Anima Rising wrote:   
      
   > Nope, not an attack on you - just a request for your CV since you set   
   > yourself up as the authority on the scientific paradigm.   
      
   In the context of the discussion, it's irrelevant (and hence, an ad   
   hominem).   
      
   Since you still haven't asked the right question, here's why the   
   experiment is a bad one:   
      
   To simplify things, I'll only consider two alternative explanations for   
   the results they're getting, so, we have three hypotheses:   
      
   1) It is possible for some people to gain information from [themselves in]   
   the future.   
      
   2) It is possible for some people to manipulate events in the past to   
   attain a desired result.   
      
   3) a) There is a component of the human body which survives death   
   with its memories and faculties largely intact.   
   3) b) Some people are capable of interacting with these post-mortem   
   components.   
      
   Schwartz has considered another hypothesis (the "super-psi" one), but has   
   dismissed it: because in his opinion it is a) probably unfalsifiable, and   
   b) more complex than (3).   
      
   I'm not sure about (a), but I disagree with (b) - my own interpretation of   
   Occams razor would say that (3) is by far the most complex explanation,   
   you will already note that it's a more complex explanation than the other   
   two, and if you break it down into smaller chunks, it becomes even less   
   likely.  (I suspect that the reason Schwartz comsiders it a simpler   
   explanation is that he believes implicitly in some of the assumptions that   
   (3) makes, and therefore does not consider their likelihood).   
      
   Hypothesis (1) is sometimes called the precognition hypothesis.  In this   
   scenario the act of providing feedback to the medium is the means by which   
   information is conveyed to the past.  If precognition exists its   
   capabilities are still unknown, it is not known, for example, how precise   
   the information needs to be.   
      
   If the exact information which is to be tested for is given to the medium   
   as feedback, (Eg. "You said the pet's name was 'fred' and you were   
   correct"), then it is plausible that precognition is a suitable   
   explanation for any information gathered.   
   This can be elimininated by not providing such feedback, although, since,   
   as I said, it is not known how precise the information has to be, all   
   feedback, even to the point of inclusion in the published results must be   
   eliminated.   
      
   Schwartz does not say whether feedback is provided; but I suspect that at   
   least some is.   
      
   If it is, the experiment is compromised.   
   He should certainly consider it, but does not appear to do so.   
      
   Hypothesis (2) is sometimes called the teleological-pk hypothesis.  It's a   
   term coined by (sorry, can't remember the first name, it's been a while)   
   Schmidt at Boeing labs.  He observed that it didn't appear to matter what   
   physical events were responsible for an outcome, nor when they occured, it   
   was the outcome which mattered.   
   His setup asked subjects to concentrate on an easily observed phenomena:   
   the apparent movement of a light (a series of lights were arranged in a   
   circle, and one at a time was illuminated in response to a random event).   
   In his opinion (and this research is considered to be some of the best in   
   the field, and is the basis of the PEAR research), t-pk appears to be   
   capable of acting in the past to influence current events.   
   So, sometimes he would connect his REG (Random Event Generator) directly   
   to the lights, sometimes via a delay of, IIRC, sometimes weeks.   
   It made no difference to the results whether the event occurred   
   milliseconds before the outcome, or weeks.   
      
   In this scenario, t-pk is used, unconsciously, by the experimenters to   
   influence the events happening in the brains of the subjects, causing them   
   to provide information which will be correct: which is the desired outcome.   
      
   This can be eliminated, although it's not easy, by, essentially,   
   embedding the whole experiment in another one, a meta-experiment, if you   
   will.   
      
   The purpose of the meta-experiment is to test the second hypothesis: this   
   could be achieved by providing false information to the markers of some of   
   the experiments.  The meta-hypothesis is that it is the information which   
   is provided as 'correct' to the markers which will be induced ny t-pk back   
   in the subjects brains in the past.   
      
   Schwartz makes no attempt to eliminate this, and in fact seems unaware of   
   it; which is a shame as it opens a whole rich seam of research.   
      
   So, in summary, there are at least two other plausible explanations for   
   the observed results, at least one of which has not been eliminated from   
   consideration.   
      
   Like I said, bad science.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- No, not that one.   
   = Mitchell ---   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)