Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Norms Amongst Paranormal Phenomena
#1
Here is an interesting idea. Many forms of psychokinesis are seen as resulting from the influence of intention on a random process. What I refer to as transform EVP is apparently the influence of the transcommunicator's intention on background noise. Background noise can be generalized as being a random process. The same goes for induced visual ITC and some forms of precipitation art. The random event generators used in the Global Conscious Project can also be generalized as a random process.

We normally think of the effect of intention on a random process as a thought influence (psi, etheric) that differentiates a physical process. If we speculate that the physical is a product of thought, then metaphysically speaking, the more correct perspective is the influence of expression (thought) on undifferentiated etheric space (psi space).

The model for this would be "transforming a nascent process according to intended order." Most, if not all of the paranormal phenomena I am aware of conforms with this model. (sometimes we need to look pretty deep into the phenomena for this to be true.)

Truzzi's* “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence,” has come up several times for me in the last week or so. Most writers on the paranormal argue that this is a fallacious argument because the idea of extraordinary only has meaning from the perspective of mainstream thought, but makes no sense in terms of all things paranormal.

One of the problems we have in the ATransC when considering the various techniques for capturing ITC is that some follow the "transforming a nascent process according to intended order” model, but others apparently do not. An example is transform EVP does but radio-sweep does not. With this difference in mind, I would argue that the norm is transform phenomena and the extraordinary claim is radio-sweep.

In my view, Truzzi's “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence” argument is valid relative to the local norm. We need to look for such norms amongst the phenomena we study and work with, and accept that there are possible phenomena that may not be real if the norm is correct. All of this is based on the understanding that reality is knowable.

I am interested in comments about this, both as it pertains to norms and to understanding norms.
 
*Truzzi, M. (1978). On the extraordinary: an attempt at clarification. Zetetic Scholar 1, 11–22.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#2
You "speculate" that the physical is a product of thought. The link goes to your Implicit Cosmology page, but I don't see where this claim is made there. Can you be more specific?

What is the relationship between "undifferentiated etheric space (psi space)" and background noise, random event generations, etc.? You imply that they are the same.

If a radio sweep is done with intention, wouldn't that qualify under your definition of "transforming a nascent process according to intended order”? If not, how is that intention different from "transform EVP" intentionality on background noise, random event generations, etc.?
Reply
#3
Steve, We are heading to the airport. I will answer as soon as we are able. May be tomorrow.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#4
Photo 
The Implicit Cosmology essays covers the whole model. Take a look at http://ethericstudies.org/concepts/creative_process.htm. I will probably need to put a note on the essays to the effect that they have become a little out of date as I rethink them for the book.
[Image: Basic%20Functional%20Areas%20for%20Perception.gif]
Take a look at the Perception and Expression Diagram near the bottom of the essay. I will attach it here. The primary references I rely on for this include the growing number of psychology articles in the popular media about how most of our mental processing is unconscious. First Sight Theory by James Carpenter detail current psychology and parapsychological research is indicating that we first process information unconsciously, and that it is only the results of that of which we become consciously aware.

If mind is separate from brain so that brain is a transducer, and considering the unconscious nature of perception and expression, it is necessary that information from our physical is translated into some form of psi influence to be processed in our unconscious mind.

If all of this is true, then we experience reality as our unconscious perceptual processes thinks of it. That is decided by worldview. If true, then our worldview is the definition of our personal reality.

Background noise is a physical process and psi space is nonphysical. In the Implicit Cosmology, mind, via the perception and expression process, impresses intended order on the psi field. I am vague as to how that translates into a weak psychokinetic signal that translates intended order into a change in physical noise because I don't know enough about the process.

We are pretty sure stochastic amplification is the physical process that makes that small psychokinetic strong enough to be audible. We also know that broad-spectrum noise is the media in which stochastic amplification works. Putting all of that together, intention causes change in the physical by way of some physical process.

Radio-sweep does not have the physical process that supports stochastic amplification. It is an entirely different premise. The problem with radio-sweep besides the fact that all formal analysis of it I know of shows it is probably not producing EVP, is that it requires the etheric communicator to cause a person to speak something at a specific time. There simply is no precedence for that. It also violates self-determination.

There is no magic. Intention does not magically cause change. It depends on knowable processes. (I think Undecided )
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#5
Comments below.

(02-16-2016, 01:48 PM)Tom Butler Wrote:  The Implicit Cosmology essays covers the whole model. Take a look at http://ethericstudies.org/concepts/creative_process.htm. I will probably need to put a note on the essays to the effect that they have become a little out of date as I rethink them for the book.
[Image: Basic%20Functional%20Areas%20for%20Perception.gif]
Take a look at the Perception and Expression Diagram near the bottom of the essay. I will attach it here.

Interesting diagram, but for a full understanding, I will need to review the model.

The primary references I rely on for this include the growing number of psychology articles in the popular media about how most of our mental processing is unconscious. First Sight Theory by James Carpenter detail current psychology and parapsychological research is indicating that we first process information unconsciously, and that it is only the results of that of which we become consciously aware.

If mind is separate from brain so that brain is a transducer, and considering the unconscious nature of perception and expression, it is necessary that information from our physical is translated into some form of psi influence to be processed in our unconscious mind.

This is unclear.  Are you saying that intention and perception are a properties of mind, which is non-physical?  And that the linear sequence of events is mind-intention to psi force to unconscious mind to physical brain?  

Is the "unconscious" a property of mind or brain?  

How does brain influence mind?  Is it the reverse sequence: brain-unconscious-psi-mind?  


If all of this is true, then we experience reality as our unconscious perceptual processes thinks of it. That is decided by worldview. If true, then our worldview is the definition of our personal reality.

Background noise is a physical process and psi space is nonphysical. In the Implicit Cosmology, mind, via the perception and expression process, impresses intended order on the psi field. I am vague as to how that translates into a weak psychokinetic signal that translates intended order into a change in physical noise because I don't know enough about the process.

So psi creates sensible EVP sound the same way it creates thought in the brain?  Is the brain's transductionism a result of it's psi translation capability?  

We can get by without understanding the PK mechanism, just as we don't completely understand electricity, but still use it.  However, once we do understand the PK mechanism, it will accelerate practical development.  


We are pretty sure stochastic amplification is the physical process that makes that small psychokinetic strong enough to be audible. We also know that broad-spectrum noise is the media in which stochastic amplification works. Putting all of that together, intention causes change in the physical by way of some physical process.

References on stochastic amplification and broad spectrum noise to validate these assumptions?  

Radio-sweep does not have the physical process that supports stochastic amplification. It is an entirely different premise. The problem with radio-sweep besides the fact that all formal analysis of it I know of shows it is probably not producing EVP, is that it requires the etheric communicator to cause a person to speak something at a specific time. There simply is no precedence for that. It also violates self-determination.

How is it that radio sweep is time specific?  How does it violate self-determination?  How do we know that it does not produce EVP?

There is no magic. Intention does not magically cause change. It depends on knowable processes. (I think Undecided )
Reply
#6
Interesting diagram, but for a full understanding, I will need to review the model. 
The model begins with the Trans-Survival Hypothesis essay under the Concepts tab of EthericStudies.org. The Implicit Cosmology essay outlines the so what and the rest of the essays there are intended to help the reader understand those implications ... world according to Tom.


This is unclear.  Are you saying that intention and perception are a properties of mind, which is non-physical?  And that the linear sequence of events is mind-intention to psi force to unconscious mind to physical brain?  


Intention is an influence generated by conscious self to drive the unconscious perception and expression process. What comes out is the result of that process, only as it is translated according to the person's unconscious worldview. Intention is about the only thing conscious has to say about experience and action.

All of this is mind and is not physical. We have been taught to assign physicality to perception, but perception itself begins as an unconscious process. This is becoming a well-established point in psychology.

Is the "unconscious" a property of mind or brain?  

Brain is just a transmitter-receiver for consciousness. It goes away when the body dies and we are no longer entangled with the brain. That is a fundamental precept of both the Super-Psi Hypothesis and the Survival Hypothesis.

How does brain influence mind?  Is it the reverse sequence: brain-unconscious-psi-mind?  

As far as I can tell, brain does not influence mind. It is the other way around. The specifics of that is currently beyond my education, so others would need to apply the model.

We can get by without understanding the PK mechanism, just as we don't completely understand electricity, but still use it.  However, once we do understand the PK mechanism, it will accelerate practical development.   

People have been getting buy for centuries. The problem is that people have developed a lot of myth along the way. We can improve our lot by understanding what is actionable. For instance, realizing that we only become aware of what our worldview thinks of reality, and knowing that we can incrementally change worldview (the Maybe outcome of the Perceptual Loop) techniques can be taught to improve what is in worldview. 

Another consideration is understanding mental mediumship. There may be no such thing as a medium "getting out of the way for spirit." It looks like a person can develop an attitude of suspended judgement that will allow the perception process to act as a clear channel with more Maybe outcomes. As it stands now, much of what we claim to know about mediumship is out of date.

References on stochastic amplification and broad spectrum noise to validate these assumptions?  

The references are all over atransc.org. We have been writing about it for years. I will attempt to put together some references. The main reference is the relationship between background noise and how EVP forms and sounds in transform EVP.

How is it that radio sweep is time specific?  How does it violate self-determination?  How do we know that it does not produce EVP? 

I will begin with the assertion that radio-sweep does not produce EVP. If I am correct, then the rest is moot.

The radio-sweep process is to rapidly intercept a sting of local broadcast signals in a manner that the resulting sound stream produces the intended EVP. Virtually all EVP seems to be sounds that can be construed as an answer as long as you do not now what the answer is supposed to be. This has been studied a number of times, but look at the study we partially funded: http://atransc.org/journal/radio-sweep_study2.htm 

An important point of confusion is the fact that the sweep process can produce sound that is ideal for transform EVP. It is not uncommon to find transform EVP in supposedly radio-sweep examples. 

=====================================

All of this is theory, which I hope, is founded on good references. Each essay has a few references. I have 200 or so in the book I am writing. The book should be out this summer and out dates those essays. I will attempt to bring them up to date when I have time.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#7
With radio sweep, how do you determine of an EVP is the result of a transform (because it produces the right kind of noise) vs. the sweep process itself?

So according to your hypothesis, PK induces a shift in the psi field, which is non physical. Thereafter, that shift is mirrored in the background noise, which is physical. But the mechanism by which this shift happens is unknown. It is a crucial question, as it is the key to the transduction process.

I digress into spontaneous musings on this matter.

You theorize that the brain is merely a transducer of consciousness, and has no consciousness of its own. This reduces to the question of what consciousness is. If the brain is merely a machine, and if we assume that machines do not have consciousness, the definition holds. But if the level of consciousness is based on the number of calculations, (a simple consciousness being able to process only one calculation), and the brain having a storage capacity of one petabyte (http://www.livescience.com/53751-brain-could-store-internet.html) with concomitant calculation capacity, then the brain would qualify as a highly sentient "thing" and that could be an alternative definition of mind. In other words, mind could be an emergent property of the brain.

We might also hypothesize that both mechanisms are at play. So if mind contains an infinite number of possible states because it originates in the infinite, it may be that it cannot easily "talk" to a physical thing that has limited computing capability. At an adequately high threshold of computational capability, the infinite has the potential to communicate. It can do this directly through brain, or through the intermediation of background noise, or both. The stochastic complexity of noise gives it a large number of possible states, thus allowing it to function as an adequate medium for transduction through instrumental processes, PK being synonymous with such transduction.

The number of possible states is non-physical, as numbers exist in the numinal realm. A physical object, though it ultimately consists of nothing but numbers, has a phenomenal existence only by virtue of its underlying order (arrangements of subatomic, atomic, and molecular orders). If a physical object (ie. brain, white noise generator, RNG generator), can be made to generate overlaying complexity (ordered chaos) through numerous calculations, the potential for contacting the infinite property of consciousness is enabled.

Thus, for a purely instrumental EVP system to exist, we may require an object that is capable of a large number of computations like the brain, and simultaneously has a high capability for storing and ordering those computations, like the brain. With noise, we have the former, but not the latter, which may be why, for now at least, we still require the presence of physical mediumship in collaboration with instrumental systems. As artificially intelligent systems evolve, and theoretically begin to mimic what we call "consciousness" the game might change, and a purely instrumental EVP system could emerge.

Advances in artificial intelligence are helpful in this regard. But an understanding of chaos theory and how to apply it to instrumental systems would also be helpful.
Reply
#8
Use the Glossary at http://ethericstudies.org/concepts/terms.htm 

With radio sweep, how do you determine if an EVP is the result of a transform (because it produces the right kind of noise) vs. the sweep process itself?

The resulting sound stream from radio-sweep typically consists of bits and pieces of sound from various radio stations in the local market. The weep is typically two-to-three seconds. A large city will usually produce a very full string of bits and pieces of voice and music. Because of the relatively log sweep time, it is common for whole syllables to be heard and it is those bits of voice practitioners claim as EVP.


For instance, a radio announcer might be saying something like “Boy are they a bad team” and the sweep might pick up “Bo” and a little of the “y.” The practitioner may have asked, “Who is here?” and translated the “Bo..” as “Bob.” Since the name of any possible present entity is unknown, “Bob” is as good as any. 


The sounds claimed as EVP are too often fragments of voice that are construed to have meaning. (That is called story telling.) Almost always, the assigned meaning is baseless. If there is a completed phrase, it is clearly nonsensical.


When sound from the sweep is used to produce transform EVP, the resulting phrases are complete thoughts with a logical beginning and end. The words are expressed with a definite enunciation that conveys sex, feeling and accent.

So according to your hypothesis, PK induces a shift in the psi field, which is non physical. Thereafter, that shift is mirrored in the background noise, which is physical. But the mechanism by which this shift happens is unknown. It is a crucial question, as it is the key to the transduction process.


Parapsychologists propose a psychokinetic expression from mind that produces a physical effect. If some form of natural, organizing principles are hypothesized, then the physical effect must have a psi-to-physical mechanism. To my knowledge there are no parapsychological theories for this. (They do not talk to me, so there may be.)


Stipulating that there is a physical component of the psychokinetic influence, and that broad-spectrum noise is the common physical environment in which EVP are formed, the known physical process that will amplify a weak signal in a noisy environment is amplification via stochastic resonance. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2660436/ )

[Image: Life%20Field%20Complex.gif]



None of this is my theory except for  the possible application of stochastic resonance. Even that is a logical conclusion for anyone trained in telecommunications. What may be new, but not unique to me, is the mechanism for developing a physical component of a psychokinetic signal. If we make our world by assigning meaning to perception that distinguishes physical from etheric domains, then we also assign the physical component of our expression according to our intention.

 

Important assumptions here is that natural processes are knowable and that there is no magic. By that I mean the psi-physical interface necessarily involves physical processes without discontinuity between expression and experience.


An interesting consequence of this beyond the expression of intended order in chaotic systems is that we make our world according to the intended order defined by our worldview.

About your other comments:

In the séance room, physical mediums are known to produce physical effects by way of the expression of ideoplastic structures. In effect, the controlling personality, by way of the physical medium and/or the sitters, mentally builds physical objects used to produce physical voice (traditionally an ectoplasmic voice box) spirit lights (ectoplasmic rods holding the light) and to move objects such as a trumpet.


This is comparable to precipitated objects which are seen as physical material that is deposited from psi space into the physical according to intended order. The medium often provides physical sources for precipitated spirit art such as open paint or ink sources.


Apports are essentially a precipitated form that is impressed into the physical following the original form of the raw  material before decomposition and “movement” through nonlocal psi space.

All of these forms of psi-to-physical influences are mental process which amount to the unconscious formulation of action based on worldview which emerges into conscious awareness and as physical ideoplastic structures. They are thought structures which we assign as physical.


In this model, the brain is part of the human organism and has evolved as a mechanism to regulate the human body. You can see in the brain’s structure how it has evolved along with the evolution of the human. The brain hosts autonomic processes and facilitates expression of instincts as both are maintained in the body mind (body image).


Also in this model, we as immortal personality entangle ourselves with the body organism when it is born so as to experience this venue for learning. When our human host is no longer able to support our physical perspective, we are once again free to associate ourselves with psi space (I refer to psi space as the etheric).


I have included a diagram here that illustrates this relationship. The entirety of iot is nonphysical expect for the human body. As far as I can tell, there is no support for the idea that we are physical part of the body. For us to experience what the body sees, we depend on the brain to translate what is sensed by the eyes into a psi signal which is processed in the Attention Complex. We share that complex with our body while we are in the avatar relationship
 

So, while I try to speak in terms parapsychologists might relate to—mind-body duality and all of that—the fact is that the brain as transceiver for mind does not not work very well. Mind’s value beyond regulation of the organism is to transform biological signals from the senory organs into psi signals which we can perceive.
 

Two useful models for this are Rupert Sheldrake’s Hypothesis of Formative Causation (http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/morphic/morphic_intro.html) and James Carpenter’s First Sight Theory (http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/documents/FirstSightformindfield.pdf )
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#9
For the sake of this post, I would like to posit three "Types" of mediumship. The first (Type 1) is human-only - ie. human based channeling, intuitive readings, etc. The second (Type 2) is human-technical, wherein a technical setup produces EVP's, but is operator dependent. Either the operator must be present, or the operator has "loaded" the system with order, meaning & properties that allow it to function. The third ("Type 3") is the purely technical system, or pure ITC. My primary interest is in Type 3 because of its potential for replicability, availability and universality, which are lacking in Types 1 and 2 because of operator dependency.

The Implicit Cosmology model seems to apply to the first two types, but not the third. For Type 1, mind PK's the brain, and brain creates an output. For Type 2, "mind" PK's the brain which in turn PK's the device to produce an output. For pure, non-operator dependent ITC (Type 3), mind would either have to impact on the device directly, or the device would have to partake of properties similar to the brain to fulfill its intermediary function.

My hypothesis above was that a sufficiently artificially intelligent machine could replicate the properties of brain, thus fulfilling its function for a Type 3, operator independent system. Rather than referring to the ideas of Sheldrake and Carpenter, I invoked the notion of possible states and the relationship between infinite and finite. These may be different ways to look at the same thing.

I read the Sheldrake and Carpenter articles, and began the Stochastic Resonance article. The latter is long and will take a while to get through. I was intrigued by its application to neuroscience; but again, if this were completely understood, it would apply only to Types 1 and 2. Therefore, I need to get a complete understanding of non-biological SR to see how it could be applied to a Type 3 system. I would also like to further understand the relationship between SR and PK, which you address in your model, though I believe it does not apply to Type 3.

Thanks for explaining your dismissal of radio sweep as a source of valid EVP signals. I did a search on the ATransC website, and found 6 pages related to "radio sweep," which is a lot to go through. Which of those references backs up this dismissal? A search of Stochastic Resonance yields two pages of references. Which would be most relevant to this discussion?

Might I also suggest that a biological-machine hybrid could function as a Type 3 system, if the biological portion of it is structured in a way that can bridge physical and psi space, just as brain does. We are currently seeing an explosion of such hybrids. In fact, all physical objects partake in both psi space and consciousness. It might come down to the object's degree of complexity and structural capacity for resonance to a given function (ie. producing EVP's). This may not necessarily require electronics or biology. Geometrical forms are known to have effects on psi space, and great art can transport one into another dimension.

The domain of Magick is where we find technologies for mentally loading objects with order, meaning, intention, and assignable functions. Much could be learned from Magick, and could lead to the development of a pseudo Type 3 system ("pseudo" because an operator still had to load the object). It is possible that MacRae, for example, has done this without Magickal training, simply through acts of Formative Causation.
Reply
#10
To begin with your three methodologies for transcommunication:

Type 1: Human mediumship (no technology, spoken or psychokinetically induced)
Type 2: Human mediumship with aid of technology (EVP/ITC, recorded, audio speaker and/or video display)
Type 3: Technology only (artificial technology, EVP/ITC, recorded, audio speaker and/or video display)

Good idea. I like the three type view.

It is true that the Implicit Cosmology only directly addresses Type 1 and 2; however, Type 3 is at a different scale than the cosmology. As we build a device, we are embodying an expression. The cosmology addresses the concept but what we assign as physical is a particular instance of the concept.

How to say this? Going back to something like the more traditional view of cosmology, imagine a layer cake with the greater reality on the top layer (Layer 0) and earth on the bottom (Layer n). The cake becomes more objective and less conceptual as you move from Layer 0 to Layer n.

Organizing principles as concepts would be the next layer down (Layer 1). Life fields as aspects of Source would be next (Layer 2) and the expressions of mind would be next (Layer 3). The first physical layer (Layer 4) would be the embodiment of those expressions as, say a chair or a car. The next would be evolution of that first form (Layer 5).

Mind is the active agent of a life field and is functionally represented by the Attention Complex. (I treat brain as a mechanism to support the body, not to support conscious self.) In your three type model, Type 1 (mediumship) would compare to Layer 3 to Layer 4. Type 2 would be Layer 3 to Layer 4. Type 3 would be Layer 5 but would begin as Layers 3 to 4.

An interesting concept that your Type 3 brings up is one I have been working on as Cooperative Evolution. The concept is meaningful for relationships amongst living organisms such as a dog breeder and his/her dogs. Is it reasonable to say that, once an engineer designs and implements an artificial intelligence engine, what follows would be cooperative evolution as the engineer tweaks the design to facilitate the AI engine’s self-education? In turn, the engineer gains understanding about AI.

At any rate, assuming some kind of stochastic process is needed, the Type 3 AI device would necessarily employ the same physical mechanisms as in Type 2. Wouldn’t you just be developing an automatic audio recorder?

The test for radio-sweep is in two parts. First is how well people are examples. The long study for that is A Research Study into the Interpretation of EVP. A quick and dirty version is Radio-Sweep: A Case Study. Both are under the Journal tap of atransc.org. The one by Leary would have had zero recognized words if he had excluded single syllable words. For usefulness studies, single syllable words should be excluded because of the frequency of false positives. Also, storytelling and selective attribution must be guarded against.

The second test is how well the technique conforms with precedence. It is reasonable to consider new approaches and new technologies, but it is also necessary to assess the likelihood that a novel approach has been found. For instance, most special devices for EVP are little more than novel means of generating useful noise for the impression of intended order via stochastic resonance. When a technique such as radio-sweep comes along that is entirely different, it is important to make sure the test for word recognition is positive.

I do not consider my thoughts about radio-sweep as dismissive. Radio-sweep fails the first test and has virtually no agreement with other forms of transcommunication. We do have some important deviations from the norm such as faces on turned off TVs, but they satisfy the first test of recognition. It is irrational to recommend such a flawed technique to our supporters.

Perhaps the important the most important change in perspective to come from psychology and psi studies is First Sight Theory. Carpenter recognizes this and has formulated it in terms of psi influences, but most of his work is echoed by mainstream psychology. If they are right, then the arrow of creation always points from the Attention Complex toward the focus of attention. In the same way, the length of the arrow vector is determined by the degree of intention, and its accuracy depends on the visualized outcome.

Using your terms, I think we always “load” a system. Magic is a means with witch to condition our conscious self to be more focused. An alternative approach might be lucidity training of mindfulness (Mindfulness article under the Concepts tab of ethericstudies.org) and the Monroe audio sessions (monroeinstitute.org and The Monroe Way under the Articles tab of atransc.org)
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#11
(02-16-2016, 01:48 PM)Tom Butler Wrote:  Radio-sweep does not have the physical process that supports stochastic amplification. It is an entirely different premise. The problem with radio-sweep besides the fact that all formal analysis of it I know of shows it is probably not producing EVP, is that it requires the etheric communicator to cause a person to speak something at a specific time. There simply is no precedence for that. It also violates self-determination.

You could influence the root choice-points which through the butterfly effect would make them end up saying just the right word at the right time according to your will, but at their own volition in accordance with their perceived environment. You'd retroactively influence the subtle stochastic outcomes in their history to nudge them towards just that word. They're the kind of person who would say that word at that time under that circumstance anyway, and that circumstance might be just as preferable as so many similar would-be ones. No free will is necessarily violated. It's common to incorporate other people in order to accomplish anything. Radio announcers having your back at just the right time during a dial sweep is probably something they don't mind even if they were aware of it. These are the same people who would probably hold a door open of their own volition though "caused" by you following behind them to the door. This is a collaborative reality. There are so many different potential ways to phrase a newscast at so many similar timings, that if the one that actually manifests kills two (or more) birds with one stone, we're all better off, and no one should really care that it happens to turn out this way instead of some other practically indistinguishable way.

Granted, I do think radio dial sweep is a crummy way to get stochastic words. For one thing, there are too many competing intentions among all the listeners, many of whom are far from passive unwitting bystanders to the words. I would call this "observer pollution." If you're attempting to influence a stochastic process that many others are reacting to in many unknown ways, you have a muddled source, somewhat analogous to the "multiple paths" problem in radio propagation. You want to get a good EVP but assume you also want to be around happy people, and if for some reason the particular wording of that EVP you want will make others unhappy (through subconscious priming) the competing outcomes of the stochastic processes nullify preferability. The best stochastic sources would be those that have no other contingencies based on their outcome, i.e. dedicated single-use EVP sources. Another thing is that, though there are some stochastic elements in newscast's history, the sample space of possible outcomes is not as large as it is for more stochastic processes.
Reply
#12
Hi Ryan, thanks for your thoughts on this.

of course, I have to agree that your theory may be feasible. Since we still do not know the limits of our communicator's ability, we cannot rule out anything. We can say that this is easily demonstrable and that is difficult to demonstrate. Or, that the evidence of one kind of process is more substantial than another. In the end, we have to objectively test the results with witnesses.

If independent, uncoached listeners generally agree on what is said using one technique and seldom agree on what is said using a different technique, then it is prudent to advise people to begin using the more effective technique. Radio-sweep seldom passes our listening tests.

The emphases here is on objective results. You are proposing a lot of hypothetical maybe or could be. Do you know of any studies we can consider? I will admit that I stopped looking at radio-sweep a few years ago as more productive techniques and studies came along.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#13
Ryan, I started a thread concerning a possible model to explain how radio-sweep might produce EVP at http://atransc.org/forum/thread-942-post-5061.html#pid5061
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#14
(03-23-2016, 10:40 AM)Tom Butler Wrote:  Ryan, I started a thread concerning a possible model to explain how radio-sweep might produce EVP at http://atransc.org/forum/thread-942-post-5061.html#pid5061

I've started playing white noise from radio very softly in the room with an mp3 recorder to capture EVP using the principle of stochastic resonance. Not long ago I really thought I was onto something. But as the recordings drag on I realize most of the voices are just coincidence. The granularity of white noise is not as rich as we normally think. In other words, upon closer examination one snippet of white noise is distinguishable from another and can contain identifiable sounds. At first, white noise sounds to the naïve listener like an infinitely divisible, featureless, homogeneous stream. But listen long enough, attentively enough, for any voice saying anything, no matter how quiet, and eventually you'll score some positives. That's just plain data fishing.

I'm devising a test to mitigate against the problem of data fishing. I'll set up software to display a random 2-digit number upon hitting space bar. Then I'll turn the laptop monitor away from my view and hit space bar. I'll ask the ethereal entities to read the number from the computer screen and to speak that number in the form of EVP at any time throughout a 5 minute recording. Then I'll check the monitor and verify the correctness. If this turns out not to work with random numbers, I'll try it with random words, then colors, then pictures, until I catch statistical significance, or else I won't reject the null hypothesis that EVP doesn't work that way.
Reply
#15
Ryan, I disagree about white noise. If it does have irregularities in it, then it is not white noise, but something else. Also check your ground noise.

We have conducted trials to see how people hear noise. See the Phantom Voices article at http://atransc.org/journal/phantom-voices.htm. Some people do hear voices in simple noise, but that is a physiological or mental phenomena and not EVP. There is also the potential of hyperlucidity (http://ethericstudies.org/concepts/terms_a-l.htm#Hyperlucidity)

Your test sounds like a good one, but before you draw any conclusions, it may be necessary to find a competent practitioner. I am not saying you are not, but it is important that you consider this. I would not conduct experiments to test a technique with my recording ability alone. In fact, I am pretty poor at capturing EVP compared to Lisa. Any test you conduct would be meaningless unless you have a practitioner who is able to produce EVP at a fairly dependable rate.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#16
(03-23-2016, 12:34 PM)Tom Butler Wrote:  Ryan, I disagree about white noise. If it does have irregularities in it, then it is not white noise, but something else. Also check your ground noise.

We have conducted trials to see how people hear noise. See the Phantom Voices article at http://atransc.org/journal/phantom-voices.htm. Some people do hear voices in simple noise, but that is a physiological or mental phenomena and not EVP. There is also the potential of hyperlucidity (http://ethericstudies.org/concepts/terms_a-l.htm#Hyperlucidity)

Your test sounds like a good one, but before you draw any conclusions, it may be necessary to find a competent practitioner. I am not saying you are not, but it is important that you consider this. I would not conduct experiments to test a technique with my recording ability alone. In fact, I am pretty poor at capturing EVP compared to Lisa. Any test you conduct would be meaningless unless you have a practitioner who is able to produce EVP at a fairly dependable rate.

The whole white noise is irregular. It's regularities that stray from white. At snippets short enough for a word or phrase, played repeatedly, there are not enough samples for the distribution to regress toward the mean. Take a quarter second of white noise and put it on loop play and you'll see what I mean. You can hear the repeating sequence immediately and it is distinguishable from other split-second repeating sequences also taken from white noise.

You're right about the experiment in that repeatability is the cornerstone of a good experiment. The experiment of whether people are able to hear any EVP that happens to be anywhere on a recording, has certainly been repeated. But so far I have yet to come across anyone testing a hypothesis about the actual informational content of EVP, such as whether they can answer a closed-ended question correctly. I only hear that they exist, and tips on how to capture more of them. If the EVP-producing entities for some reason refuse to participate in hypothesis testing sufficient for statistical significance, that wouldn't necessarily rule out EVP as a supernormal phenomenon. Small children may well refuse such requests too but we wouldn't conclude they can't really talk.

One conclusion might be that if EVP are the speech of unseen entities, they are uncooperative with us or oblivious to us. Alternatively, if EVP repeatedly fail to meet certain specifications, no matter how much the practitioner intends it, this can tell us something about the hypothesis that the listener psychokinetically embeds the voices into his own recordings. Maybe the intent is not under the conscious control of the practitioner, so EVP would seem to originate from outside entities and fail to meet consciously decided specifications.

I think the simple presence of EVP has been confirmed to the paranormal community. It's time to analyze the data if we want to go beyond just the satisfaction of capturing them.
Reply
#17
You bring up quite a few points. I will explain my perspective about them, but this is interesting material and I would like to learn a little about your background and how you arrived at some of your points.

You said, "The whole white noise is irregular."

It is true that, if one looks at a quiet audio track that reads zero level without amplification, with amplification, the zero level will tend to show quite a lot of noise. Zero to 120 Hz is contaminated by global lightning strikes, household products such as electric motors and fluorescent light ballasts. AM radio accounts for most of the 20 to 4,000 Hz range because just about any electronic device is capable of demodulating AM carrier frequencies to reveal the audio-frequency content. A lot of amplification can make this noise audible making over processing a source of false-positives.

In an audio loop, the irregularities of this contamination is typically amplified via stochastic amplification and will result in irregular noise where more random noise is expected. Of course, white noise is a general term, as it should be referred to as pseudo white noise or pseudo-random noise.

The thing is, though, that I have never seen anyone attempt to condition background sound with a very tight loop as you describe. In EVPmaker, and it's like, a continuously generated stream of pseudo-random noise is thought to be psychokinetically influenced to purposefully select bits and pieces of pre-recorded sound from buffer addresses. This is used to produce an output audio stream containing the intended voice. The paranormal puck for instance, used normally random perturbations in environmental energy to select buffer addresses.

By the way, we depend on that ground contamination to cause perturbations in a video loop to produce visual ITC features. We think the naturally emergent regions of order are influenced to produce intended features. 

You said: "You're right about the experiment in that repeatability is the cornerstone of a good experiment."

What I was referring to is the need for someone who can reliably record EVP. There probably are no statistics, but experience tells us that probably one out of a hundred of us can be expected to produce at least one Class B utterance about 30% of the time in a series of three-minute session. The experimental protocol means nothing if such a person is not involved. It is also not a good idea for researchers to conduct a serious study using themselves as the practitioner.

Lack of a confident practitioners has been a major source of really bad research. Also, not using a qualified listening panel tends to nullify the study and is a major problem with studies showing that radio-sweep produces EVP. (See Witness Panel best practice http://atransc.org/bp/Witness_Panel.)

You said: "The experiment of whether people are able to hear any EVP that happens to be anywhere on a recording, has certainly been repeated. But so far I have yet to come across anyone testing a hypothesis about the actual informational content of EVP, such as whether they can answer a closed-ended question correctly. I only hear that they exist, and tips on how to capture more of them."

The AtransC conducted a year-long study asking transcommunicators to name an object housed in another city, which was known only to one person. The study was designed to test EVPmaker, so all results had to be from EVPmaker using synthesized allophones. The study had a number of participants and independent listener/judges. There were a few hits from outside of the protocol recorded by one person. See: http://atransc.org/journal/information_gathering_using_evpmaker.htm

A series of experiments known as the 4Cell EVP Demonstration produced a number of very good hits. It was in that study that we demonstrated the need for a competent practitioner. Also, any recording technique was allowed. See: 
http://atransc.org/journal/4cell_experiment.htm

As you say, there are many anecdotal reports. We often asked the communicators to provide us with a meaningful EVP before our presentation at conferences. For instance, "Do you have a message for the camera man? (we were working with Universal). EVP: "The camera man!" In another, "What can you tell us about mediums?" EVP: "Hear us through them." Actually, most EVP have some degree of relevance, else they would not be considered communication. Specific answers are often responded to with relevant but unexpected information. The problems come in field recording when information is asked for without knowing the answer.

You said "If the EVP-producing entities for some reason refuse to participate in hypothesis testing sufficient for statistical significance, that wouldn't necessarily rule out EVP as a supernormal phenomenon."

We think statistical analysis has no place in the study of transcommunication. Either the results are there or they are not. I think of that as "decisive determinism." You are right in that it is common to ask for information without receiving a meaningful response. Our perspective is that they will talk where we listen, and are always eager to talk. But we do not know for sure. More likely, the practitioner is not sufficiently skilled to draw any conclusions from the lack of EVP. For instance, it is no surprise that I do not receive a response. It is unusual for Lisa to do a walkabout with many sessions without recording at least one good utterance. 

Anabela Cardoso shares your view that we depend on the transcommunicators to decide if they will talk with us. I doubt that is true, as I have seen no objective evidence supporting that view.

You said: "One conclusion might be that if EVP are the speech of unseen entities, they are uncooperative with us or oblivious to us.  Alternatively, if EVP repeatedly fail to meet certain specifications, no matter how much the practitioner intends it, this can tell us something about the hypothesis that the listener psychokinetically embeds the voices into his own recordings.  Maybe the intent is not under the conscious control of the practitioner, so EVP would seem to originate from outside entities and fail to meet consciously decided specifications."

The model we have adopted is that all trans-etheric influences depend on a person. Here, a person is defined as an etheric personality entangled with human avatar. We also find First Sight Theory helpful in understanding trans-etheric influences. (http://www.drjimcarpenter.com/about/documents/FirstSightformindfield.pdf) So I would say that current thought is that EVP are expressed by the practitioner or interested obnserver as that person relates the intended message with worldview. In other words, the received message is translated in an unconscious process by a person and psychokinetically expressed as intended order. At least that is the current theory.

The problem comes from the worldview of the involved person. We use terms like incredulity blindness to describe the inability of a person to allow such trans-influences to occur. (http://ethericstudies.org/concepts/terms_a-l.htm#Incredulity_blindness)

You said: "I think the simple presence of EVP has been confirmed to the paranormal community.  It's time to analyze the data if we want to go beyond just the satisfaction of capturing them."

I agree, but I am curious as to what you consider the paranormal community. If you measure the community as people who are actively interested in paranormal phenomena (psi, survival), then you have to include parapsychologists. They are mostly anti-survival and prefer either a mundane explanation (anomalous psychology) or the Super-Psy Hypothesis. Almost all of them are actively anti-survival as witness the treatment of the FEG medium condoned by them. See: The Felix Study: Personal Attack Under Cover of Science and The Arrogance of Scientific Authority.

The phenomena of ITC is decisively real and collection of the phenomena is one of the most replicated experiments in the paranormal field. The problem is that one academic "not real" wipes out all of the layperson successful demonstrations. if we are to move on to analysis, it will be necessary for us laypeople to learn to work together as we develop a more professional culture of careful research, documentation, real peer review and collaboration. We do not even have a literature base for prior literature study before a research project begins. We certainly cannot depend on the parapsychologists.

I believe it is conversations such as this that might help us develop such a culture.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#18
Hello,

I would like to say something about this theory. Please forgive my lack of understanding for I do not have a lot of education and when I read all of your threads, it kind of boggles my mind because I do not understand everything you are expressing. I think what you are saying is that, what we think we create. Which is very true, but when it come to ITC, project or thoughts and have them be created that fast, seconds after...... I have a hard time with that. I have quite a bit of experience with ITC, and I have many images of water/light/reflection, vapor, and evps. I also, in my early years up until the age of 10, could hear and see spirits. My argument here is, I do not think at all that it is my thoughts or perceptions that are projected on or in the water or the vapor or between radio stations when I get the evidence that I have received. I have conversations with these earth bound spirits through my evps, and I do not think that I am talking to my projections of thought. I maybe way out of my league here, or maybe I did not read the threads right, but I had to say the way that I look at things. We do not die period, and we just go through the veil, to another dimension that is parallel to ours, and there are so many levels, above and below. That is my perception. Thank you for reading...
Reply
#19
I understand. If today I came upon these articles for the first time, I would certainly be lost. Most of what I say here has come from many years of working with these phenomena and trying to develop a workable model to help explain them. We are taught from birth to see the world from our body's eyes. We are taught to assign physical meaning to things we are taught are physical. Collectively, we build the world that way.

We can understand these phenomena on two levels. From our body's perspective, things like EVP are useful when trying to contact our discarnate loved ones. It helps with grief and serves to reassure us that death is not all that scary afterall. yet, our body is afraid of dying and we are taught that we are our body. Perhaps our fear is much stronger than our excitement about hints of the other side.

The other way to understand these phenomena is from the perspective of our immortal self. It is that perspective we retreat to in our dreams, sometimes even in our deep meditation. From that perspective, these phenomena are just outward expressions of our normal interaction with the rest of reality.

Spend some time contemplating the difference between a body-centric perspective and an immortal self-centric one. If your mind is nonphysical, then you can see that your brain is a transmitter/receiver useful for enabling you to experience the physical like a native life form. All of the information gathered by your physical senses must be converted into nonphysical signals your mind is able to process. in effect, the only physical part of you is your flesh and bones.

If your mind is nonphysical, then you literally construct a sense of the physical world based on what you have been taught. That is a mental construct which you express into your conscious awareness as physicality. In that view, objective phenomena is also a projection ... not into the physical so much as into the minds of experiencers.

Each of us is a channel through which physicality is expressed. Because of the physical body-immortal self entanglement we enjoy during a lifetime, we are able to give physical expression to mind imagery. The theory is that our communicators who do not have a physical body must us our channel to affect physical change. We do not need to be conscious of this use of our channel. In fact, we have to work pretty hard to learn to notice it at all. Consider the difficulty of developing lucid mental and physical mediumship.

So just focus on the difference between physical and nonphysical and the implications of nonphysical mind. All else follows.
Tom Butler
Co-director ATransC
Reply
#20
Thank you Mr. Butler. That is very interesting and I will do that.

Shari-Lyn Wheeler
Reply


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text within the image on the left in to the text box below. This process is used to prevent automated posts.

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
[-]
Search








(Advanced Search)

[-]
General Recent Threads
Real Name It Is
Last Post: Tom Butler
09-19-2017 03:54 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 225
ATransC Occasional Update 15
Last Post: Tom Butler
08-08-2017 03:40 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 333
About me
Last Post: Karen Mossey
07-08-2017 09:21 AM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 713
ATransC Occasional Update 14
Last Post: Tom Butler
05-03-2017 04:26 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 622
Prime Imperative
Last Post: Tom Butler
04-28-2017 03:50 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 1707
Chris Fleming's April Spirit Talk
Last Post: Karen Mossey
04-22-2017 04:05 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 1794
About me..
Last Post: Laurie Bradbury
04-08-2017 08:38 AM
» Replies: 10
» Views: 3052