Randi did what?

[GIThruster]

While I'm sticking my neck out here, in the interests of full disclosure I should own that I am currently more open to examine the psi issue than years in the past. I did have a critical thinking class on "Science and the Occult" 2 decades ago and that was thought provoking but generally I don't give psi my attention nor interest. However, I have had a repeating occurence most of my life, perhaps a couple dozen episodes; that gives me pause to wonder whether there is more to this stuff than I have generally given it credit for, so I'll explain for a moment.

Starting when I was in Jr. high, I have periodically had anomalous events happen in my life that I cannot explain away as misunderstandings of statistics or probability. Most people have. This is why most people to this date, even in the West, even amongst those who are more educated than the norm, report some sort of such anomalous event in their life. My experience has been what Dean Radin is calling "presentiment" or an emotional reaction to an event, before the event occurs. Anyone interested in this will find a good telling of the empirical evidence for this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

The first episode like this I can recall, I was playing sideline basketball, where most of the gym class was standing around the basketball court while others were playing, and the players can throw the ball to the sidelines where their teammates can then throw the ball back into play. I was at the farthest end of the court from our net when at the end of the game I got the ball and when overcome by an inexplicable emotion I can only describe as "sudden confidence and joy" I heaved the ball as hard as I could and got just net. The fact I did this is not that unusual. The fact I seemed to know before hand it would get just net was highly unusual. In the days that followed, the same thing recurred and the students started passing me the ball just to see if I could do it again. I did it half a dozen times before the first time I threw without that sensation and missed.

When I was in baseball, I had the same sensation many times. I lead the league in home runs, batting average, and RBI's, but the really interesting thing about going to bat was the sensation that fairly often preceded a good hit. I have never received that sensation and failed at getting what I was after. If you look only at those occasions I had the sensation, I had a 100% success rate.

Through most of my life, that has been an infrequent event, but it happened again just a couple weeks ago, so when I was asked to look at the Sheldrake and Radin vids, I complied. Usually I don't mess with stuff like this.

A couple weeks ago, I was standing talking to a handful of guys I know who were playing cards. I didn't know much about the game except that it involves each player with his own deck and a bunch of dice used as counters. One of the dice bounced across a couple tables that had been put together and up against me. When I picked it up I had this overwhelming sense of confidence so I asked the guys motioning me for it, "where do you want it?" The owner pointed down to a card in front of him that was mostly covered with another card, and said "I need a one here". I said "here you go" because I was full of this sudden, inexplicable confidence.

The die tumbled across 2, 3' wide tables, onto a rubber mat and landed finally atop the tiny bit of exposed card with a 1 face up. You can imagine the uproar when people saw what had happened. There were 5 guys seated around the table all looking at the die as it bounced. 4 of them shot right out of their seats while waving their arms and pointing.

Now if I was accustomed to attempting such things eventually you'd suppose it would happen. I'm not. And the only correlation I have with these kinds of astonishing events, is they're always preceded by this overwhelming sensation of joy and confidence. I could have sat there and rolled that die a thousand times trying to repeat that event and without the sensation, I have no delusions that I would be successful even once. I should also point out, there seems to be no way to manufacture that sensation.

So, what does this mean? I don't think it means I have magical powers. Rather, I think Radin's explanation (as far as it goes) is pretty good. Strongly emotional events can have a time reversed effect. Modern physics tells us that there are all sorts of "retrocausal" events, where effects can precede their cause. I thus think Radin and perhaps Sheldrake are onto something, and to be honest, I don't think they get a fair hearing. I understand why this is so. My only response at this point is to say, "look at the evidence before you make up your mind." If you don't look, its probably best to not share your opinion too forcefully for truly, "There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy."

[ladajo]

Bottom line for me here is that they both seemed to have misrepresented a bit. However, it would see based in context that Sheldrake did it more than Randi.
But the entire topic is hard to follow because we are only getting snippets of the back and forth.

It seems reasonable to me that Randi has something with the independant review done on the dog tape. There are also time jumps in the argument as it has happened over a decade. That in itself makes some of the back and forth suspect in relativity.

On the other hand, why does not Sheldrake come clean with the entire dog video?

I think that the phenomena at hand is closley related to ink blot tests. If you stare at it long enough it can be anything.

For GIT, I ask that for everyone of your pre-euphoric confidence moments that you recall, how many 'I've got this' pre-event moments did you forget where it was a fail?

I have also have moments like you describe, but then many others where I had similar feelings but without success. I did not dwell on the fails nearly as much as I have treasured the 'wins'.

One of my favorite 'wins' was shooting a smiley face with a .45 at about 30yards offhand after my buddy double centered the target and said beat that. My answer was "lethal weapon can kiss my ass" and six blams. I am sure I'll never be able to lob six .45s like that again at that distance. Before I started I was abosultely sure on the outcome. But like I said above, I have had other moments where I was abosutely sure on the outcome but things did not work out as envisioned. Those have tended to be more so lost to history than the 'wins' for me.

[GIThruster]

For GIT, I ask that for everyone of your pre-euphoric confidence moments that you recall, how many 'I've got this' pre-event moments did you forget where it was a fail?

None. As I said, there has never been a time I experienced that sudden confidence and failed to achieve the expected outcome. The success rate of events including the presentiment is 100%. I haven't had any experiences of emotion that were similar and could thus be confused. Too, I think this experience must be fairly common as whomever designed the presentiment experiment was looking for just this dynamic. They used images that evoke powerful emotions and looked for a change in "galvanic response"? (some skin response measured by a machine) and observed the retrocausal correlation without any need for the subjects to report, so they could not have gotten wrong what you're asking about so far as self reporting. Obviously they could have recorded skin responses of all kinds sans stimuli. One would need to look at the study and how it was analyzed. many here could do that but I would not expect Randi to do that as he hasn't got the tools for it. This is however, the subject that has been in the journals for many decades and it seems obvious people have poured over this point.

This issue brings up an odd question, at least in my instance. In the tests, there was no actual performance of a task like throwing a ball or die. They merely evoke emotions and observe an emotional response before the stimuli. In my case, the emotion was from the successful completion of a task.

Now in my case, I threw the die the way I did because of the emotion, but the emotion was the result of throwing the die. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I have no idea. I'm not even sure the concept of "first" makes sense when looking at retrocausal effects. It's had me thinking for a couple weeks now. Until seeing this Radin vid yesterday, it had never occurred to me to consider the emotion as the result of the successful event. I instead thought about it as somehow entering an unusual point of focus perhaps like the japanses Qi of Chi. I can tell you though, I had no discernible point of focus for throwing the die. I had no idea which pips on the die were facing which way, so I could not have through some inordinate coordination caused the die to land 1 pip up. And just saying, no one could do such a thing. The die must have bounced at least 15 times and probably more.

Its very confusing, and interesting. . .

[JoeP]

I've had these "in the zone" moments during sporting events. A complete confidence that I would make the next shot, and have it vindicated by success. That said, I believe I have also felt that confidence and have also failed despite that internal assurance.

The mind can play tricks after a fail. "...did I really feel that confident? No, not as confident as I felt the last time I made the shot and felt 100% that it was a foregone conclusion. No, I did not feel as if I would make the shot before I made it." Done. The internal editor at work here. Subconscious processes. Edit out the fail.

Now does your subjective experience, GIT, bias your opinion of Sheldrake's work? It must, otherwise why would you be including it in the discussion?

(Yes, I know you looked at his data. However his failure to release the whole "dog video" seems suspect.)

[paperburn1]

My dog can tell time (roughly) my wife says about twenty to thirty minutes before I get home he starts looking and waiting for me. if I am late he keeps looking and listening until I arrive. No great mystery in my book.

[ladajo]

My dogs did the same. And the cats as well.

When I had them.

In fact both dogs (had them independently) would postion themselves when the normal hour approached.
What would have been more interesting would be if they pre-po'd on an abnormal movement.
This never ever happened. They expected me at the expected time. They were not stupid.

[GIThruster]

Now does your subjective experience, GIT, bias your opinion of Sheldrake's work? It must, otherwise why would you be including it in the discussion?

I'm sure our experiences always bias our opinions, but Sheldrake's work wasn't the stuff that involved "Presentiment". That was Dean Radin's work, which I'm much more impressed with. I like Sheldrake's attitude so far as the topic of science, and one expects to be impressed with any prof at Cambridge, but Radin's work was what hit closest to home.

The dog behavior studies were done with the folks coming home at different times. Why would anyone even pretend it was a study if not so? Seriously, any prof at Cambridge publishing such obviously and stupidly wrong stuff would be booted in a heartbeat. You're making at best "uncharitable" assumptions. What Sheldrake says for example is:

"Many dog owners claim that their animals know when a member of the household is about to come home, showing their anticipation by waiting at a door or window. We have investigated such a dog, called Jaytee, in more than 100 videotaped experiments. His owner, Pam Smart (PS) traveled at least 7 km away from home while the place where the dog usually waited for her was filmed continuously. The time-coded videotapes were scored "blind". In experiments in which PS returned at randomly-selected times, Jaytee was at the window 4 per cent of the time during the main period of her absence and 55 percent of the time when she was returning (p<0.0001). Jaytee showed a similar pattern of behavior in experiments conducted independently by Wiseman, Smith & Milton (1998). When PS returned at non-routine times of her own choosing, Jaytee also spent very significantly more time at the window when she was on her way home. His anticipatory behaviour usually began shortly before she set off. Jaytee also anticipated PS's return when he was left at PS's sister's house or alone in PS's flat. In control experiments, when PS was not returning, Jaytee did not wait at the window more and more as time went on. Possible explanations for Jaytee's behavior are discussed. We conclude that the dog's anticipation may have depended on a telepathic influence from his owner."

Obviously if this is true, Randi lied.

[JoeP]

OK, well why wouldn't he release the raw video data? Did he address this? Or did he say it was lost?

Also, just analyzing that paragraph (where can I read the actual study?) brings to mind many questions. What does 'The time-coded videotapes were scored "blind"' mean? Does it mean that there were no humans anywhere in the vicinity of the test subject (dog)? If so, for how long?

For example, here is just one problem: There could be a whole communication path here between test observers chemical emissions and the dogs nose. For example, lets say the test-case-observer/camera-operator gave off a slightly different scent due to some anticipation/expectation that the dog might be observed to react at an unusual time. The camera operator might have even left the scene hours ago but the damage is done and the experiment is doomed.

Dog brain: "Funny new smell lingering in the air from that human that was in here this morning...perhaps something exciting will happen!...like my owner coming home! What could be more exciting than that! I better check the window a bit more! Woof!"

These are the kind of things that an organization like Randi's would meticulously eliminate in a fair test. If you want to build a statistical case, you better be able to eliminate all outside influences.

[ladajo]

Let us not forget that the entire video was reviewed by an independant group that Randi cited. According to Randi this group said the dog responded randomly to outside stimulus and no correlation was found to the owner's travels. Randi also said they tested other dogs/animals over the years and got nada as well.

So it would appear that someone is lying or seeing what they want to see.

I would suspect the later, and I am currently inclined to think more so that Sheldrake is the one doing it.

Is it possible? Sure. Is it probable? No. This lack of probability is based in a distinct lack of proof after many searches for it, not gut or opinion.

[GIThruster]

OK, well why wouldn't he release the raw video data? Did he address this? Or did he say it was lost?

I don't know. Given we already know Randi lied about having tested the dog, odds are good he made up this lie too, but if it mattered to you, you'd need to go back to the raw data which would likely mean starting with one of Sheldon's books.

Also, just analyzing that paragraph (where can I read the actual study?) brings to mind many questions. What does 'The time-coded videotapes were scored "blind"' mean? Does it mean that there were no humans anywhere in the vicinity of the test subject (dog)? If so, for how long?

For example, here is just one problem: There could be a whole communication path here between test observers chemical emissions and the dogs nose. For example, lets say the test-case-observer/camera-operator gave off a slightly different scent due to some anticipation/expectation that the dog might be observed to react at an unusual time. The camera operator might have even left the scene hours ago but the damage is done and the experiment is doomed.

You'd need to read the book where this is reported. Assuming Sheldrake screwed up something this simple is not however a fair judgement. This is why I'm saying it matters that Randi lied in the above, because he is now the one you ought to be treating as a hostile witness, not Sheldrake.

Let us not forget that the entire video was reviewed by an independant group that Randi cited. According to Randi this group said the dog responded randomly to outside stimulus and no correlation was found to the owner's travels.

Sheldrake is the one who claimed the vid was viewed by an outside group, not Randi. Randi claimed to have done the entire study themselves and later owned they had done no such thing. They lied start to finish about how they handled the data. This is the reason for this thread--Randi has so discredited himself.

Randi also said they tested other dogs/animals over the years and got nada as well.

That was the same claim.

So it would appear that someone is lying or seeing what they want to see.

Yes. this is my point. Randi lied and later made uop a ridiculous story about how they had not said what they had said. Randi's group actually calls Sheldrake "clever" for drawing the conclusion he did from Randi's statements when in fact, that was the obvious, reading of the statements. It was NOT Sheldrake who had been clever, but Randi, and he was more than a little dishonest too. When you claim to have tested someone's work and later claim that "oh, we did that years ago and don't have any of the data from it anymore" you are obviously LYING. Randi was the one here who was lying.

[GIThruster]

OK, well why wouldn't he release the raw video data? Did he address this? Or did he say it was lost?

I don't know. Given we already know Randi lied about having tested the dog, odds are good he made up this lie too, but if it mattered to you, you'd need to go back to the raw data which would likely mean starting with one of Sheldon's books.

Also, just analyzing that paragraph (where can I read the actual study?) brings to mind many questions. What does 'The time-coded videotapes were scored "blind"' mean? Does it mean that there were no humans anywhere in the vicinity of the test subject (dog)? If so, for how long?

For example, here is just one problem: There could be a whole communication path here between test observers chemical emissions and the dogs nose. For example, lets say the test-case-observer/camera-operator gave off a slightly different scent due to some anticipation/expectation that the dog might be observed to react at an unusual time. The camera operator might have even left the scene hours ago but the damage is done and the experiment is doomed.

You'd need to read the book where this is reported. Assuming Sheldrake screwed up something this simple is not however a fair judgement. This is why I'm saying it matters that Randi lied in the above, because he is now the one you ought to be treating as a hostile witness, not Sheldrake.

Let us not forget that the entire video was reviewed by an independant group that Randi cited. According to Randi this group said the dog responded randomly to outside stimulus and no correlation was found to the owner's travels.

Sheldrake is the one who claimed the vid was viewed by an outside group, not Randi. Randi claimed to have done the entire study themselves and later owned they had done no such thing. They lied start to finish about how they handled the data. This is the reason for this thread--Randi has so discredited himself.

Randi also said they tested other dogs/animals over the years and got nada as well.

That was the same claim.

So it would appear that someone is lying or seeing what they want to see.

Yes. this is my point. Randi lied and later made up a ridiculous story about how they had not said what they had said. Randi's group actually calls Sheldrake "clever" for drawing the conclusion he did from Randi's statements when in fact, that was the obvious, reading of the statements. It was NOT Sheldrake who had been clever, but Randi, and he was more than a little dishonest too. When you claim to have tested someone's work and later claim that "oh, we did that years ago and don't have any of the data from it anymore" you are obviously LYING. Randi was the one here who was lying.

[GIThruster]

OK, well why wouldn't he release the raw video data? Did he address this? Or did he say it was lost?

I don't know. Given we already know Randi lied about having tested the dog, odds are good he made up this lie too, but if it mattered to you, you'd need to go back to the raw data which would likely mean starting with one of Sheldon's books.

Also, just analyzing that paragraph (where can I read the actual study?) brings to mind many questions. What does 'The time-coded videotapes were scored "blind"' mean? Does it mean that there were no humans anywhere in the vicinity of the test subject (dog)? If so, for how long?

For example, here is just one problem: There could be a whole communication path here between test observers chemical emissions and the dogs nose. For example, lets say the test-case-observer/camera-operator gave off a slightly different scent due to some anticipation/expectation that the dog might be observed to react at an unusual time. The camera operator might have even left the scene hours ago but the damage is done and the experiment is doomed.

You'd need to read the book where this is reported. Assuming Sheldrake screwed up something this simple is not however a fair judgement. This is why I'm saying it matters that Randi lied in the above, because he is now the one you ought to be treating as a hostile witness, not Sheldrake.

Let us not forget that the entire video was reviewed by an independant group that Randi cited. According to Randi this group said the dog responded randomly to outside stimulus and no correlation was found to the owner's travels.

Sheldrake is the one who claimed the vid was viewed by an outside group, not Randi. Randi claimed to have done the entire study themselves and later owned they had done no such thing. They lied start to finish about how they handled the data. This is the reason for this thread--Randi has so discredited himself.

Randi also said they tested other dogs/animals over the years and got nada as well.

That was the same claim.

So it would appear that someone is lying or seeing what they want to see.

Yes. This is my point. Randi lied and later made up a ridiculous story about how they had not said what they had said. Randi's group actually calls Sheldrake "clever" for drawing the conclusion he did from Randi's statements when in fact, that was the obvious, reading of the statements. It was NOT Sheldrake who had been clever, but Randi, and he was more than a little dishonest too. When you claim to have tested someone's work and later claim that "oh, we did that years ago and don't have any of the data from it anymore" you are obviously LYING. Randi was the one here who was lying--hence the reason for this thread.

[ladajo]

Randi said (again):

A colleague of mine in Europe told me that he'd seen the tape record, and that he and his colleagues presented a version of it to some students who were asked to record each time the dog was activated. The dog never stopped, reacting to passers-by in the street, cars, any unusual noise and any sort of distraction. The only portion of tape that I was able to see was the section that Sheldrake saw fit to publish, the limited sector that indicated -- to his selective gaze -- the point he wanted to prove. Dr. Sheldrake, may we see the entire video record, so that we may repeat that student evaluation with persons who are, in your view, qualified to see it? I promise that I'll stay behind in Florida, and I'll not put out those "negative vibes" that I'm sure you feel would affect the test. Or are those tapes now lost, or perhaps not available for legal reasons?

In closing, I'll add: When I was in the UK a few years ago, I asked Sheldrake if I could test his wonder-dog, but I was told that the dog -- and its owners -- didn't want me around. I think that explains a lot about how willing Sheldrake is to face real, independent, examination of his claims.

Randi does not, nor has previously made a claim that he had seen the whole tape. It is Sheldrake who says that he said he did. Show me the Dog World article and we will see if what Sheldrake claims is correct.

Randi states CLEARLY that a colleague of his used Sheldrake's entire video (the one he won't release now) to do a analysis of the dog's behaviours.
This analysis disagrees with Sheldrake's findings.

Sheldrake has also not seen fit to answer Randi's posted questions:
May we see the entire video record?
May we repeat the evaluation made by my colleague?
May we test the dog directly?

So a place to start is the "Dog World" article in question. What does it REALLY say? I am not interested in what Sheldrake claims it says, nor what Randi claims it says. It is what it is, so let's see it.

[GIThruster]

Are you saying that Sheldon is lying when he reports on what Randi did?

In Dog World, Randi stated: 'Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by.'

I haven't read the bit in Dog World, but it seems to me this would be grounds for a civil suit of Sheldon had been so misrepresenting Randi.

Either way you're stuck with the fact Randi obviously made claims that were not true.

[ladajo]

So here is someone who thinks Sheldrake is full of it. But in a nice way.

http://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/07/the-pr ... drake.html

And here is a case that lays out where Sheldrake lies about Randi in a different context:

http://www.skeptic.org.uk/component/content/article/542

And then there is Richard Wiseman's take on Sheldrake after attempting to repeat Sheldrake's findings (with his permission and support to do so). The amusing part is that Sheldrake also calls Wiseman a liar after Wiseman did not agree with Sheldrake's findings.

As for the Dog World article, we have Sheldrake quoting Randi in a possible misquote, and also representing another Randi quote to suit his own purposes (seems similar to how he may handle 'experimental data' based on anecdotal evidence).

So, since noone has seen the article in question, at best it is he said, she said. At worst it is both parties misrepresenting. But I do not think the evidence (loosely used term here) at hand presents a clear case.

Where is the proof?
An article in question. (lost to time?)
A video record in question. (Sheldrake won't release)
A Dog (probably dead now).

Sheldrake really does come across as a nice kook. But a kook none-the-less.