Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

I've been trying to write a paragraph as a "female" and submitting it to the link above: so far I've gotten the percentage down, but it always identifies my gender as "male".

 

[Tyger]

Interesting results: 1st paragraph said I was male 63%; 2nd paragraph entered said I was female 53%. When I entered both paragraphs together said I was female 68%.

Next attempt: 1st paragraph said I was male 68%; 2nd paragraph said I was female 52%. When I entered both paragraphs together said I was female 72%.

Something wonky with the system methinks. Doesn't add up imo.

BTW - whenever I do any of those tests - like a right/left brain determination, for example - I always show up in the middle. I appear to be very well-balanced. (The result of doing all that Kundalini Yoga in my salad days - Fire-Breaths! In pretzel position!)

 

[smcder]

Interesting results: 1st paragraph said I was male 63%; 2nd paragraph entered said I was female 53%. When I entered both paragraphs together said I was female 68%.

Next attempt: 1st paragraph said I was male 68%; 2nd paragraph said I was female 52%. When I entered both paragraphs together said I was female 72%.

Something wonky with the system methinks. Doesn't add up imo.

BTW - whenever I do any of those tests - like a right/left brain determination, for example - I always show up in the middle. I appear to be very well-balanced. (The result of doing all that Kundalini Yoga in my salad days - Fire-Breaths! In pretzel position!)

You had mentioned people don't always correctly identify your gender from posts alone and I think I did identify you as male or wasn't sure at first, for some reason the spelling "Tyger" either made me think female or I later identified it as a way to remember you were female after I found out - can't remember which.

The shifting results above are probably consistent with the programming - I wouldn't expect any sort of linear relationship with the percentages.

It's interesting to try and write a paragraph to fool the system into thinking you are another gender.

From the article:

Men were more likely to use the word "I", for example, whereas women used questions marks more often.

More from the article (my underlining below):

To write their program, the team first turned to vast tranches of bylined text from a Reuters news archive and the massive email database of the bankrupt energy firm Enron. They trawled these documents for "psycho-linguistic" factors that had been identified by previous research groups, such as specific words and punctuation styles.

In total they found 545 of these factors, says Chandramouli, which they then honed down to 157 gender-significant ones. These included differences in punctuation style or paragraph lengths between men and women.

Other gender-significant factors included the use of words that indicate the mood or sentiment of the author and the degree to which they use "emotionally intensive adverbs and affective adjectives such as really, charming or lovely" which were used more often by women, says Chandramouli. Men were more likely to use the word "I", for example, whereas women used questions marks more often.

Bayesian algorithms
Finally, the software combined these cues using a Bayesian algorithm, which guesses gender based on the balance of probabilities suggested by the telltale factors. The work will appear in an upcoming edition of the journal Digital Investigation.

It doesn't always work, however. When the software is fed text, its judgement on a male or female writer is only accurate 85 per cent of the time – but that will improve as more people use it. That's because users get the chance to tell the system when it has guessed incorrectly, helping the algorithm learn. The next version will analyse tweets and Facebook updates.

Bernie Hogan, a specialist in social network technology at the Oxford Internet Institute in the UK, thinks there is a useful role for such technology. "Being able to provide some extra cues as to the gender of a writer is a good thing – it can only help."

Even a "neutral" decision might indicate that someone is trying to write in a gender voice that does not come naturally to them, he says. "It could be quite telling."

 

[Tyger]

Ooooh, Constance - you're holding out on us - devise says you're male 54.43%.

Honestly, I think it's an example of how hard it is for anyone - scientists included - to construct such tests without substantial cultural biases coming into play.

I also think it has everything to do with how one was educated - as well as what one is discussing in the text, and the venue: is it a private letter to one's lover, is it a discussion on science on a public forum, etc.

 

[smcder]

Most larger internet service providers include free disk space on which you can blog with whatever platform they include or build your own custom site free of charge. It's not hard to build a basic custom website to publish what you want. In some cases it's even easier than trying to figure out a blogging interface. Otherwise re-establishing your original Blogger account is probably just fine.

I got a Wordpress site set-up and drafts of some posts. It looks like it's set up to allow you to get started right away but also very sophisticated (with a learning curve) to allow extensive customization.

My thought right now is as a kind of diary as I read through the experiments - start with some self-assessment of where I am now on Psi research evaluating it as a science (to the best of my layman's ability) and then re-evaluating periodically as I read the research and criticism. The trick is to bring some added value to anyone who might read the blog, but also to encourage them to read the research too.

For example, after reading the Utts study - I think: this is a peer-reviewed published scientific paper, it discusses methodology and theory and anticipates and answers criticism and should be dealt with like any other piece of science, on its merits and faults. I had started to read Alcock's general criticism of psi research: Give The Null Hypothesis a Chance but there is a series on Utts' website which included Hyman's report on the same study and her responses to the criticism and Radin's site has some of these back-and-forth exchanges as well and I think those may be promising as examples of research, critique and response:

• An Assessment Of The Evidence For Psychic Functioning
• Professor Hyman's report.
• Utts' reply to Hyman's report
• Response by Dr. Edwin May, the lead investigator for the government-sponsored work and Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory

 

[smcder]

Ooooh, Constance - you're holding out on us - devise says you're male 54.43%.

Honestly, I think it's an example of how hard it is for anyone - scientists included - to construct such tests without substantial cultural biases coming into play.

I also think it has everything to do with how one was educated - as well as what one is discussing in the text, and the venue: is it a private letter to one's lover, is it a discussion on science on a public forum, etc.

another approach:

A Computer Designed to Determine Gender - ABC News

The images included only eyes, nose and mouth — eliminating such things as beards and hair — and the system initially did fairly well, learning which gender to assign each image just on the basis of visual cues.

But it wasn't good enough. So Sharma and his team of researchers took it a step further and added an audio signal consisting of tiny snippets of male and female voices a fraction of a second long.

And that, he says, puts the system way over the top. It gets it right nearly 100 percent of the time, he says, and that's significantly better that humans can do. We only get it right a little more than 90 percent of the time, given the same cues, he says.

So in one sense, at least, scientists have come up with a computer that's better at sex than we are.

The obvious critique is in the phrase "given the same cues" in other words, playing the computer's game on its own terms. But put a computer in the real world . . . oh wait, you can't do that! ;-)

 

[smcder]

Ooooh, Constance - you're holding out on us - devise says you're male 54.43%.

Honestly, I think it's an example of how hard it is for anyone - scientists included - to construct such tests without substantial cultural biases coming into play.

I also think it has everything to do with how one was educated - as well as what one is discussing in the text, and the venue: is it a private letter to one's lover, is it a discussion on science on a public forum, etc.

Agreed - the article noted gender neutrality as being particularly important in scientific publications (but didn't expound on this . . . ) - also, the very same sentence:

We are going to town now!

Can mean very different things in context and that context might not include any other speech. Let's say in a novel two characters are dancing the Tango and the music swells and one says to the other:

We are going to town now!

And in another instance one character is crying and the other is pointing at the back seat and saying:

We are going to town now!

. . . well, let a computer figure that one out -

 

[Tyger]

So I just have to talk with a lot of self-referencing, using the pronoun I at every turn, like I am doing now. But what, I wonder, does that do for English folks. I really am wondering because I do that sometimes. Because I know that English people use the word 'one' to replace the pronoun I - as even I do oft times.

I just put the above paragraph into the decoder and the result was -

Male 59.13%

Now I am re-writing the paragraph replacing all the I's with the word 'one' where appropriate.

So one just has to talk with a lot of self-referencing, using the pronoun one at every turn, like one is doing now. But what, one wonders, does that do for English folks. One really is wondering because one does that sometimes. Because one knows that English people use the word 'one' to replace the pronoun in the first person singular - as even one does oft times.

Oooo - variance - above reconstituted text using 'one' instead of 'I' Male 58.93%

Are all English people male?

 

[Tyger]

I got a Wordpress site set-up and drafts of some posts. It looks like it's set up to allow you to get started right away but also very sophisticated (with a learning curve) to allow extensive customization

You got me thinking - though I am also competitive - that I should set up a blog. And on my blog I'll respond to your blog.

It also seems to me that one can be more forthright about one's interests on a blog. I am tempted to post links to some very interesting interviews given by occultists but I refrain from doing so here. On a blog - not so much. I'd do it in a heart beat.

Constance - you must start a blog, too. We can then respond to each other's blogs.

I have heard that women use a lot of smileys/emoticons. I dunno - think that's right?

This I do know - you can make money with blogs.

Wordpress - I'll check it out.

 

[Burnt State]

This might be interesting . . . paste in some text to have your gender checked by a computer program. It correctly identified me as male, based on two posts I copied from this thread:

Gender Classification from text

From 2003:
Program identifies writer's gender | Science | The Guardian

A new computer program can tell whether a book was written by a man or a woman. The simple scan of key words and syntax is about 80% accurate on both fiction and non-fiction.
. . .

Koppel and colleagues trained their algorithm on a few test cases to identify the most prevalent fingerprints of gender and of fiction and non-fiction. They then set it searching for these fingerprints in 566 English-language works in a variety of genres, ranging from A Guide to Prague to AS Byatt's novel Possession - which, intriguingly, the programme misclassified by gender, along with Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day.

I entered in a variety of my posts, some spoken word, and some poems. It hit me as male each time. Upon entering Tyger and Constance's posts here - the verdict was female. I find it perplexing that it didn't recognize Byatt's text which is all about gender and which I found to be as female as reading Woolf, or Munro. I'm going to paste in some Plath and see where it goes. Fascinating stuff. Is it syntax, sound, my structure or tone? I tried to trick it by leaving declarative, and 'I' statemen out, but I couldn't get lower than 55% male. Somehow, I'm very disappointed by these results.

Re: personal writing that stings the eyes.

The fictional writing process, that draws from the non-fiction of personal experience, is like bathing in lemon juice after climbing through a thicket of raspberry canes. But on the other side of this portal are some fresh perspectives, new words and the peeled skin of the author. Nowhere to go but follow the path to where it leads after the general insecurities and personal foibles are left behind. Now, under a heavy sun you can put a magnifying glass on yourself and the scorching won't hurt a bit. Such is the baptism of writing.

 

[Tyger]

Why I'm doing this I do not know.......sigh'........it has nothing to do with what is being said but what is being claimed.

I would suggest that you avoid calling your work science unless it is.

It's not for you to say. It is a 'caution' that doesn't hold.

Scientific validity requires a recognized scientific consensus that your work conforms to rigorous standards of scientific methodology.

You need to start hanging out with scientists more.

If you fail to meet those standards ( which is virtually inevitable for political and practical reasons ),

So you say.

you'll only lay yourself open to accusations of pseudoscience,

By the ignorant. The phrase 'pseudoscience' has been devised by the true-believers in the religion of Scientism. It's more about gate-keeping. Anyone actually in science - actually 'doing science' - has more politics to balance than you can shake a stick at. That 'real science' occurs professionally is a wonder, since it is more likely to occur with the amateur, the hobbiest. Any serious scientist listens carefully to all comers - especially to the fresh insights of their students - far from regimented into any 'mode' of thinking. The enthusiasts - like the 'amateur' astronomers - are the ones with the chance to make the breakthroughs in observation and thinking.

which has taken on a distinct air of disdain among the skeptics and the scientific community,

What 'scientific community' is that? Dare I ask: can you identify?

and you'll lose any academic credibility you might have otherwise gained.

What? Not necessarily a bad thing - have you any experience with the current state of academia?

You are already calling it Psi Research, which is fine. Paranormal or Psychic Studies would also be OK, and you should make your position clear at the outset.

Where are you getting this? It's your opinion that calling it 'Psi Research' is fine. I might have a different opinion. So what? I am curious why you gravitate towards calling it psi. psychic or paranormal. I would suspect because you view those terms as denoting non-scientific (non-material) and so non-relevant studies. The 'make your position clear at the outset' suggests to me that the appropriate head-bobbing and manifestation of appropriate humility before the 'real scientists' smacks of the authoritarianism of religion, if you ask me.

Instead of science, use the process of critical thinking as outlined by the

Foundation for Critical Thinking. Critical thinking allows you to make use of any evidence and/or reasoning ( including scientific ) during your studies, but is not the same as the scientific method. For example, if you run across valid scientific information that you want to quote, you can. At the same time, you can also apply philosophical reasoning and anecdotal evidence to the process. Provided that it is all kept in context and is coherent, it is the best way to ascertain the truth of a given situation, and because you aren't making any claim to be doing science, you cannot be fairly accused of doing pseudoscience.

Well, you have an interesting set of standards there - which I am sure work for you as you pursue your UFO interest - and through the verbal slights-of-hand get you out of difficulty with heavy hitters in the 'scientific community' who jealously guard their prerogatives.

The term 'pseudoscience' is bogus. On a researcher's best day, they can be doing good or bad science - and they know it. But 'pretend' science - I think not. But the claim will be made and it is a brush once used against one as a scientist that can destroy one's career, can turn the gullible scientism-loving and tabloid-loving public against the mere mention of one's name. Remember, scientists have lines of research they want funded - 'not all is fair in love and war' - add to that science. Academia is littered with the dead.

Take for example - I have broached the idea to a colleague at a fairly well-known medical school to start offering a class specifically looking at the effects of radiation on a human population - with Fukishima as the point-of-study. The politics of doing this is enormous. Science for science sake? Unlikely. More likely a small group gathering for conversation informally will achieve more results than any illusion of 'academic credibility'.

If you should secure evidence that you think would be of use to science, then engage a real and independent scientist

Exactly where do such individuals exist? Other than in your ideal world of science, that is.

who can perform an analysis under conditions that meet the standards of the scientific community.

You are an idealist. It's about funding.

In this way you will be working with scientists rather than competing against them, so you are far more likely to win sympathy.

The kind of scientist - like anyone - you want to 'win' is someone impressed with creativity. Someone able to think in new ways. That's who you want in your lab. Protocols, yes, and absolute integrity, for sure - but that takes you only so far.

That's my two cents worth,

And mine.

and BTW I take my advice to heart when it comes to ufology. Ufology is not a science and will never become one. It isn't suited to the scientific method for several reasons. However this in no way diminishes it as a topic for study. Quite the opposite actually.

Good to know.

 

[Constance]

I wrote: "Perhaps I saw it in an earlier life. Perhaps someone else did and it's still floating around in the combined memory bank of visual information shared among our species' collective unconscious. If no information can disappear from the universe (a current view among physicists) and if it is all entangled holographically (another view held by many quantum physicists) and if we are likewise entangled in that immense hologram -- our minds being porous, sharing, receiving, and sending information locally and nonlocally -- then paranormal experience and capabilities will eventually become explicable, and celebrated."

Tyger wrote: "Fascinating - because this may be where the ancient esoteric science of the human being meets modern physics, because this all sounds very much like the description in the Sanskrit of the so-called 'Akashic Record'. It is posited that there is nothing that has ever happened that is lost - all events and thoughts exist as 'memory' in that 'Record'."

Exactly. An increasing number of quantum physicists have recognized this and it has led to the quantum mind experiments undertaken by physicists and to other developments in contemporary science, especially in biology. Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of qm, recognized the coherence of qm with the insights into the nature of reality achieved in ancient eastern thought. Here is a review of Schrodinger's What is Life? and Mind and Matter, published in a single, small, significant volume:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Must-Read Classic, July 31, 2011
By
Adam L. Bruce - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: What Is Life?: with "Mind and Matter" and "Autobiographical Sketches" (Paperback)

Every student of physical or life sciences should read this book. Period. In what is probably the single greatest unsung leap of intuition in the 20th century, Schrodinger develops--from reasoning and first principles--a very basic idea of DNA. Ultimately, this idea inspirited Watson and Crick in their groundbreaking discoveries. He then goes on to argue how entropy can still allow life to evolve (there are many erroneous arguments about how it supposedly cannot, most by Creationists), and in fact enhances the ability of a life form in an open environment to undergo evolution.

The second of the pieces featured in this edition, Mind and Matter is an attempt by Schrodinger to put the study of consciousness on a scientific ground by approaching it from quantum mechanics (canonical uncertainty, measurement theory) and thermodynamics (entropy) to come to the conclusion that consciousness itself is indestructible by time. You may agree with this, you may not, but no one can deny it is well argued and compelling. The ideas he uses to come to this conclusion, such as objectification, are interesting topics unto themselves. I cannot help but think that if certain modern day "scientific atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc) would be a little more believable if they actually bothered to read books like this one and understood the limitations the human mind puts on the scientific method.

This book is an absolute classic, and a necessary part of any complete education in science. Buy it, enjoy it, reference it, and most of all learn from it!

 

[Randall]

Why I'm doing this I do not know.......sigh ...

Me neither. When you figure it out please let me know.

Well, you have an interesting set of standards there ...

Agreed. You should try applying them sometime.

 

[Tyger]

An increasing number of quantum physicists have recognized this and it has led to the quantum mind experiments undertaken by physicists and to other developments in contemporary science, especially in biology. Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of qm, recognized the coherence of qm with the insights into the nature of reality achieved in ancient eastern thought. Here is a review of Schrodinger's What is Life? and Mind and Matter, published in a single, small, significant volume:

Some important observations in the review: "Schrodinger develops - from reasoning and first principles - a very basic idea of DNA. Ultimately, this idea inspirited Watson and Crick in their groundbreaking discoveries. [...] approaching it from quantum mechanics (canonical uncertainty, measurement theory) and thermodynamics (entropy) to come to the conclusion that consciousness itself is indestructible by time. You may agree with this, you may not, but no one can deny it is well argued and compelling." [/quote]

What many fail to grasp is that scientific research begins prior to the employment of the scientific method. Ideas come first - they are not generated from the scientific method (though ideas are certainly informed by the results of the method) - and they come in the form of questions, an idea surfaces from observation or pure thinking around which experiments are then designed. The big question remains: from where do such ideas and such questioning come, how do they originate? Plato had one answer.

 

[Tyger]

Instead of science, use the process of critical thinking as outlined by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Critical thinking allows you to make use of any evidence and/or reasoning ( including scientific ) during your studies, but is not the same as the scientific method. For example, if you run across valid scientific information that you want to quote, you can. At the same time, you can also apply philosophical reasoning and anecdotal evidence to the process. Provided that it is all kept in context and is coherent, it is the best way to ascertain the truth of a given situation, and because you aren't making any claim to be doing science, you cannot be fairly accused of doing pseudoscience.

To which I responded: "you have an interesting set of standards there"

And Ufology answered: "Agreed. You should try applying them sometime."

I couldn't because you are conflating ideas. You seem to posit that there is such a thing as 'scientific thinking'. There is a scientific method, yes. But thinking? No. You appear to want to tease out distinctions for the content of thought - that this thought is scientific, this one is not. It is a curious exercise. It approaches granting validity to avenues of thought - sure you can think this but watch out there, don't mistake philosophy and lived life for real thinking (based on science = the physical construct) - like that. There's a serious bias in what you are saying.

 

[smcder]

My parents gave me a wonderful Christmas present today - my childhood magic tricks purchased from Colonel Seymour:

Frank Seymour - MagicPedia

including a Zombie ball, Svengali decks and sponge balls . . .

Like many interested in the paranormal - I've had a long standing interest in stage magic.

The Trickster and the Paranormal -- Home Page

 

[Tyger]

Thank you for posting the link to the Trickster Home Page. I went to his blog - The Paranormal Trickster Blog where his last (but very valuable) entry was some time back in 2010 and where he talks about the death of Martin Gardner: "He dealt with the issues frequently, in depth, and for more than half a century. He was passionate about the topic, and it is not too strong to say that paranormal claims enraged him. In its own way, the paranormal was part of his life, and part of him. His writings, and also his person, merit attention. The emotion that paranormal controversies generates, and the schisms they provoke, are key to understanding the anti-structural nature of the phenomena."

Never having traversed the realm of the skeptics, I think the presence of anger towards paranormal claims is what has startled me most - yet I should not be surprised. It could be explained by human nature and the issues of power and control.

If paranormal claims are true - how does one identify the person who is so endowed? What does one so endowed see, know - about me, perhaps? The idea of it (rather than the experience of it) could work on the imagination in such a way as to intimidate - which is exactly what charlatans and con-artists depend upon, of course.

The term anti-structural intrigues me: "The ubiquitous controversies and schisms in paranormal fields are captured by the word anti-structure, a term derived from the anthropological study of ritual. The concept explains characteristics of the trickster figure of mythology as well as properties of paranormal phenomena."

I like the term - but I would probably use it differently than they were using it. Going into some of the anthropological papers to read about it brought me back to how brain-numbing academia can sometimes be for the beginning student.

My parents gave me a wonderful Christmas present today - my childhood magic tricks purchased from Colonel Seymour:

Frank Seymour - MagicPedia

including a Zombie ball, Svengali decks and sponge balls . . .

Like many interested in the paranormal - I've had a long standing interest in stage magic.

The Trickster and the Paranormal -- Home Page

 

[Tyger]

Many who? What census did you take in order to come up with that conclusion?

I didn't. I made the comment based on what I have experienced here on this chat site with some posters.

Was there some point you were trying to make?

I was. I guess you didn't get it.

 

[Randall]

I didn't. I made the comment based on what i have experienced here on this chat siet with some posters.

Perhaps you should consider making less sweeping generalizations based on a few personal experiences.

I was. I guess you didn't get it.

Right. I didn't get your point. What was it?

 

[Tyger]

You appear to have missed the intent of the post, and also seem to be the one conflating ideas, e.g. ( "critical thinking" + "the scientific method" implies "scientific thinking" ) which I had actually made an effort to keep separate. I never used the phrase "scientific thinking" once, yet you put quotes around it as if I did. If you're going to quote me, at least make sure it's something I actually said.

I've gone back over what you said and I still see an ambiguity suggesting to me that you think in terms of there being 'scientific thought'. No, you did not actually say the phrase in so many words, but based upon what you did say, and my past experience of your basic arguments, I thought it a fair assumption.

This is what you did say: "Critical thinking allows you to make use of any evidence and/or reasoning ( including scientific ) during your studies." The bolded part suggests 'scientific reasoning' - akin to 'scientific thinking'. So no, you did not use that phrase but that of 'reasoning'. And yes you make the clear point to keep it distinct from the scientific method. I am corrected.

I think this is an example of someone having had enough negative experiences with a poster that one begins to make assumptions - and I will own that. Given that, I will adjourn from interaction with you, Ufology. The playing field is littered with too much debris at this point. Happy posting, with others, though.

'Bye.