Animal Communicator Research (Podcast)

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

There is also, presumably the possibility of an effect similar to that discussed in the presentiment experiment - that the dog becomes more and more likely to go to the window as time goes by (surely they are coming soon...)

The devil of all this, is that whatever you do, someone will condemn you loudly for having got it all wrong! However, if you offer to make the raw data tapes available to any interested sceptic (maybe on line) maybe you can avoid that.

I don't think any amount of data sharing can overcome an experiment that was poorly designed in the first place.

Again, I think that going to the window more and more is a genuine problem here. In short, the problem is that each time period is not independent. With each passing minute, the dog is gaining information (through non-paranormal means) about when the owner is coming home, because they are constantly eliminating past time periods as possibilities. A rational but non-psychic dog can "predict" with 100% accuracy if their owner is coming home at 5:00 if they know that the owner comes at a randomly chosen time between 1:00 and 5:00, and they haven't shown up at 4:59.

I worked this out a bit for myself on OpenSourceScience: Talk:Can Dogs Anticipate:Statistical Considerations/GTTWMAM Hypothesis - OpenSourceScience

If this isn't controlled for, either methodologically or statistically, the researcher deserves to be condemned for having done it all wrong. That doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong (unlike what critics of Sheldrake and other parapsychologists may say), just that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And with extraordinary claims, that doubt needs to be eliminated to an extraordinary degree.

[Rudism]

From the interview, I recall that Dr. Odgen-Avrutik mentioned that she only wished to be involved in the dog experiment if animal communication could also be worked in to the design. It seems to me that a much simpler approach (that would also have the benefit of not muddying the dog experiment) would be to test her animal communication separately.

The anecdote that she gave which convinced her that her ability was real is a really good starting point--she said that her pet cat told another communicator the same thing that the cat had earlier said to her, thus confirming that the information really was coming from the cat. It's not a very huge leap to come up with double-blind experiment designs that could test that under controlled conditions. I would say these designs could even possibly be much simpler and less time consuming than the dog-at-the-window ones.

Just a quick example off the top of my head that only involves one communicator and one dog: flash a random symbol from a pre-defined set of symbols at the dog in a closed-off room, then have someone (who doesn't know which symbol was flashed) bring the dog to the communicator and record which symbol the dog says was shown. Rinse and repeat for N trials and see if you get results above chance.

Instead of the communicator expressing the importance of going to the window when they sense their owner coming home (as I seem to recall was suggested during the interview), the communicator could express the importance of remembering which symbol was shown and identifying it to her after each trial.

The ultimate claim that should be focused on here is that the animal can convey information to a person that the person couldn't otherwise know. Another possible design would be to pass messages between two communicators using one animal, but I think a single-communicator design would be better since that precludes any possible conspiracies between communicators who have their careers at stake.

[David Bailey]

Rudism,

The anticipation explanation would predict a steady rise in window visits by the dog - not a sudden spike prior to arrival. Given enough data, these two situations should be distinguishable by eye or standard signal processing operations.

From anecdotal accounts (and it is a frequently observed phenomenon) I don't think a steadily rising anticipation fits.

A graph of P(window visit within 5 mins) against time from return home summed over all experiments (of different total duration) might be interesting.

David

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I mean, sure, a cat in the house is not behaving as they do in the wild - but we aren't behaving as we would in the wild either!

Anthropologists have determined that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies, people spend about twenty hours per week obtaining food. The rest of the time they spend in ritual self mutilation and inter-tribal warfare.

Take a trip to the mall and notice the prevalence of tatoos and piercing. Turn on the TV news and notice the prevalence of violence in society.

People can be made as civilized as domesticated cats - it just requires a simple operation.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I would still like to know exactly what the communication with insects consisted of!

David

I didn't hear the podcast but I have read about animal communication with insects. In the book "Kinship With All Life" by J. Allen Boone the author describes how he could control a fly buzzing around the house and how he was able to get ants to leave his kitchen without having to use insecticide.

I
began silently talking across to Freddie [the fly] as a fellow being,
just as I had learned to do with Strongheart. I would ask
the little fellow in my hand a question, and then give
careful heed to all freshly arriving mental impressions,
the kind of impressions or sudden intuitive knowings I
had been learning to receive from animals, birds, snakes,
insects and various other kinds of wisdom-sharing kins-
folk.
Unexpectedly, every question that I sent across to
Freddie was followed, through the medium of these re-
turning impressions, by a silent counterquestion. I asked
Freddie what he was supposed to be doing in my world;


back almost instantly came a demand to know what I
really was supposed to be doing in his world. I asked him
why it was that flies treated us humans so badly; right
back came the question: why had we humans always
treated flies so badly. Then my inner ear suddenly caught
this: the important point to consider was not so much
what either of us was doing in the other’s world, but


what each of us was doing as a contributing factor in a
universe belonging to the Creator of it all.

Setting up an invisible bridge for two-way thought
traffic between oneself and a single animal is relatively
easy when one is ready for such an experience and goes
about it in the right way. But establishing such an inter-
communicating system with hundreds of ants all over the
house was something entirely different. I decided that
the only way it could be done was to turn myself into a
kind of broadcasting station and talk to all of the ants at
the same time. This I procecded to do.
“Listen, ants!” I said. “We seem to be living in a topsy-
turvy world. At the moment I am not entirely sure
whether you or I really belong in this house. But on one


point I am very clear: your wants have ruined a perfectly
good dinner for me. I had to go to considerable effort
and expense, and all alone, too, in order to get that food
for my dinner tonight. I have to eat to live just as much
as you fellows do. Then without any kind of a ‘May we?’
you come sneaking in here and take my dinner away
from me. That is neither right nor fair from any angle of
approach, especially in these difficult days when we all
ought to be trying to help one another.”
I paused for observation purposes. The broadcast did
not seem to be having the least effect on them. More ants
were coming in under the back door; more were appear-
ing on the walls and ceilings; and more appeared to be
working on the food. It was discouraging; nevertheless I
kept on.
“You ants may not be aware of it,” I said, “but I am in
a position to wipe most of you out of existence within
the next few minutes with this poison and this broom.
But that doesn’t seem to be the right answer. We humans
have been killing one another off in matters of this kind
for centuries and we are worse off today than we were
~vhen it started.”
Then remembering how every living thing likes to be
appreciated I began sending all the complimentary
things I could think of in their direction. I told them how
much I admired their keen intelligence . . . their zest
for living . . . their complete dedication to whatever
they happened to be doing at the moment . . . their har-
monious action in a common purpose . . . their ability
to work together without misunderstandings or the need
to be constantly told what to do.


I paused to take another look through the magnifying
glass. The situation seemed to be worse than ever. I de-
cided to bring the broadcast to a close.
“That’s all I have to say to you ants,” I said. “I have
honestly done my best in this situation. The rest is up to
you fello~vs. I am speaking to you as a gentleman to a
gentleman.”
I went into the living room and sat down in a chair.
I felt dejected. Also I began to wonder if I were not
mentally unhinged. Things did seem to be moving in that
direction. I suddenly remembered that an old friend, who

happens to be an authority on mental disorders, had told
me a few weeks before that the line between sanity and
insanity is often difficult to establish and many of us
cross it daily in the things we think and say and do. Had
I crossed the line in my broadcast to the ants? Was it
sane to try to set up a gentleman’s agreement with them?
I took my confusion to a comedy theater and tried to for-
get the entire experience.
Returning home shortly after midnight, I went out on
the back porch to see what was happening. There was
not an ant in sight! Not one! The icebox door ~vas still
wide open with the inviting food inside, and there was
some food on the near-by table, but not an ant in sight.
I went over practically every inch of floor, wall and ceil-
ing space in the house with a flashlight, hut not one ant
could I find. Those little fellows had actually kept their
part in the gentleman’s agreement.
This happened several years ago. Since then I have
never been bothered by ants in any manner, at home or
abroad.

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by Rudism

Just a quick example off the top of my head that only involves one communicator and one dog: flash a random symbol from a pre-defined set of symbols at the dog in a closed-off room, then have someone (who doesn't know which symbol was flashed) bring the dog to the communicator and record which symbol the dog says was shown. Rinse and repeat for N trials and see if you get results above chance.

I don't think it's as simple as it appears at first. In your example, the dog could communicate through non-telepathic means. Either unintentionally - e.g., a tendency to nod his head after seeing a wavy line symbol that the communicator picks up on subconsciously - or intentionally - e.g., training the dog to nod his head after seeing a wavy line symbol.

A good rule of thumb is that if a human could easily accomplish a task through normal means, it won't prove anything paranormal if a dog performs the same task. Anyone who has had a dog knows how smart they are, especially when their goal is to please their owner.

Maybe if the communicator was blocked from normal sensory communication with the dog, this would be tighter. Or do the opposite; train the dog to point out what symbol the communicator is thinking of while looking at him through a one-way mirror (in a soundproof shielded room, etc.).

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Phronk

I don't think it's as simple as it appears at first. In your example, the dog could communicate through non-telepathic means. Either unintentionally - e.g., a tendency to nod his head after seeing a wavy line symbol that the communicator picks up on subconsciously - or intentionally - e.g., training the dog to nod his head after seeing a wavy line symbol.

A good rule of thumb is that if a human could easily accomplish a task through normal means, it won't prove anything paranormal if a dog performs the same task. Anyone who has had a dog knows how smart they are, especially when their goal is to please their owner.

Maybe if the communicator was blocked from normal sensory communication with the dog, this would be tighter. Or do the opposite; train the dog to point out what symbol the communicator is thinking of while looking at him through a one-way mirror (in a soundproof shielded room, etc.).

Something like this has been done with a Parrott: Nkisi Project

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Something like this has been done with a Parrott: Nkisi Project

It was a good idea, but seemingly flawed in execution and analysis. I think it would be another good area for OpenSourceScience to design an experiment without so many obvious problems for us skeptics to point out after the fact (ideally one where it is not necessary to throw out 40% of the data and do wonky statistical gymnastics in order to get significance in concordance with a telepathy hypothesis).

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Rudism

It was a good idea, but seemingly flawed in execution and analysis. I think it would be another good area for OpenSourceScience to design an experiment without so many obvious problems for us skeptics to point out after the fact (ideally one where it is not necessary to throw out 40% of the data and do wonky statistical gymnastics in order to get significance in concordance with a telepathy hypothesis).

Here's Sheldrake's reply: N'kisi: Robert Todd Carroll replies to Rupert Sheldrake

Also, I like how Carroll (philosophy teacher at Sacramento City Junior College) labels every mention of his name an ad hominem attack... laughable.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Rudism

It was a good idea, but seemingly flawed in execution and analysis. I think it would be another good area for OpenSourceScience to design an experiment without so many obvious problems for us skeptics to point out after the fact (ideally one where it is not necessary to throw out 40% of the data and do wonky statistical gymnastics in order to get significance in concordance with a telepathy hypothesis).

Whenever someone says something like this about work that Rupert Sheldrake has been involved with, I start to lose patience. He is a careful experimenter with a track record in conventional science, and he goes to great lengths on his site to present the various objections to his work and explain why they are not valid.

David