Animal Communicator Research (Podcast)

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Phronk

I do hope one of us finds a rational explanation here. Because birds reading my mind = scary as hell.

Indeed. But remember that N'Kisi only has basic language skills compared to us. Even then, I don't know how reliable the evidence is that these parrots can use language in a meaningfull way. I don't know enough about theories of language to say. I imagine that if N'kisi does have a basic grasp of language then she could only 'read minds' up to a point of understanding that her language skills permit. So I wouldn't be too scared! I doubt she could tell whether I prefer abstract expressionist or photorealist paintings for example, simply because she would not have the language necessary to understand those concepts. And if she doesn't understand those concepts then any telepathic communication of those ideas would be impossible. Thinking about it, N'Kisi would be an excellent way of testing how far telepathy is limited by language!

[David Bailey]

I get the impression that lots of sceptics - here and in other places - have made unsuccessful attacks of Rupert Sheldrake's work - described at his site. He clearly knows his statistics and has a solid background in conventional research. Rupert picks experiments where the effect is pretty strong - so strong that people have already noticed it in an informal way. The chances that he makes fundamental statistical blunders seems to me to be really remote.

In the case of the N'Kisi experiments, it is surely valid to ask the question "When the parrot vocalises an actual word which is not 'camera', does he get a hit more times than chance would predict?

Suppose you had a greedy parrot that said 'peanut' frequently, are we really saying that such a parrot could never be tested for telepathy!

What would be unacceptable would be to trawl the data for arbitrary manipulations that might satisfy a statistical test. Since I am pretty confident that Rupert knows his statistics, accusing him of doing that would be tantamount to accusing him of fraud.

David Smith - I have seen remarkable film of another parrot that could respond to request such as "Pick up the red square". The idea that their language is devoid of understanding seems to have been blown away.

David

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by jacob

Just saw this article about a research on dogs:
Research indicates dogs have some ability to read minds (11/7/2007)

Very cool. I've always suspected dogs I've met of having some theory of mind (as most dog owners have). Some of my dog's ability to deceive people pretty much requires it. For example, she hates going inside after being out. If I grab her and tell her to go inside, she'll hunch her shoulders and act defeated, then start stomping toward the door. I let her go on her own, thinking that she'll finally go inside. Then, at the last minute, she dashes away and I have to chase her all over again.

The most parsimonious explanation for this type of behaviour, as far as I see it, is that she knows that I will think she's going inside, and thus let her go, when she acts as if she's been caught already. In some rudimentary way, she has a theory of what my state of mind will be if she acts a certain way.

(but I hope people realize that the above research isn't "mind reading" in a paranormal sense, but in the sense that each of two people in the same room can guess what the other person is thinking based on facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, logic, etc. So sorry for going off topic

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

... So I wouldn't be too scared! I doubt she could tell whether I prefer abstract expressionist or photorealist paintings for example, simply because she would not have the language necessary to understand those concepts. And if she doesn't understand those concepts then any telepathic communication of those ideas would be impossible. Thinking about it, N'Kisi would be an excellent way of testing how far telepathy is limited by language!

True. But if parrots could do it (without understanding), then maybe humans can do it (with understanding). And it would be just horrible if anyone found out that I say I prefer abstract expressionist painting, but I secretly love photorealist painting!

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

David Smith - I have seen remarkable film of another parrot that could respond to request such as "Pick up the red square". The idea that their language is devoid of understanding seems to have been blown away.

David

I'm quite willing to accept that they can use language and understand what they are doing. The use of language in the animal kingdom is surely a topic with its supporters and sceptics and I'd like to read much more about the topic before I commit either way. As a very superficial reaction to your above comment, I would ask - could this have been a learned response for a reward of some sort?

[David Bailey]

I think the parrot had been taught - probably with a food reward - but so, in a sense are kids! The point is that in order to respond correctly the parrot had to handle at least some grammar - not just say peanut and get a peanut. As I remember, the parrot had not simply been taught all the possible sentences, so he was responding to the structure of the sentence.

These experiments are always associated with lots of analysis along the lines you mention, but to me, the ideal should be to simply find how far animal communication can go - the theorising seems less important. There are also plenty of examples of monkeys communicating via various kinds of simple computer interfaces.

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Rudism

Designing and running experiments that rule out the criticism would be a thousand times more effective than any amount of apologetics.

For example, when Sheldrake was throwing out so many trials where the parrot didn't say any of their pre-defined keywords, he HAD to know that it would be ridiculed.

I cannot begin to imagine why it would be ridiculed.

Carroll says:

You do not need to be a trained scientist to recognize that when testing the telepathic ability of a parrot and it says nothing when the subject looks at a picture card that it should be taken as a sign that no telepathy is occurring.

I also can't understand why it should be taken as a sign that no telepathy is occurring. So Carroll is saying that if the parrot is receiving any sort of telepathic impression he (the parrot) will be more likely to speak than if he were receiving no telepathic impression. How does Carroll know this? What is his reasoning? So far as I can see he doesn't give any reasons. Maybe it would all be clear to me if I were a trained scientist, but I feel somewhat doubtful.

Indeed one might hypothesis, on the contrary, that when the parrot is receiving a telepathic impression it might have a propensity to be quiet because it is thinking about the image being conveyed to it. However if receiving no telepathic impression there is that much less to occupy his thoughts, so he will be more likely to talk (as in the sense of idle chatter).


But let's for the sake of argument assume Carroll is correct. It appears to me to be a complete red herring anyway. If it is stated upfront prior to the experiments that only where the parrot actually speaks will be taken into consideration, and if the parrot says the key words corresponding to the target more frequently than could be reasonably ascribed to chance, then this clearly cannot be explained away by considering other data which was not originally meant to be included!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Rudism

trials during which the bird did not respond with words matching to the owner's "psychic" signal are evidence that the stimulus does not exist. But most of this data was thrown out, apparently using the very excuse that the bird did not appear to get any psychic messages during that trial! If that's not bias, I don't know what is.

Sheldrake actually said that the parrot did not appear to get any telepathic impressions when it was silent?

Let's suppose this was indeed the case and the parrot really did not receive any telepathic impressions at those times. Let's imagine the following scenario. Suppose you were to think of a digit from 0-9 (inclusive), and you did this on 20,000 different occasions, and each time I was asked to put down what number I thought it was utilizing any telepathic ability I have. But say on half of those occasions I didn't put a number down because I felt I wasn't getting any telepathic impression. However, for the 10,000 times where I did put a number down, I get the right number 15% of the time. You would maintain that is less impressive than if you had only chosen a digit 10,000 times and I had got 15% of them right?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Guest: Dr. Kim Odgen-Avrutik, explores new research on the psychic link between humans and dogs that know when their owner?s are coming home? and how she handles those who are skeptical of animal communicators: "I do believe it is the

Click here to read more ...

I think the good way to investiguate this is to have more studies about fantasy-prone personality. I mean listening to this woman, for me, it was obvious that she has such personality.

For exemple, if you listen attentively to what she said, it's pretty obvious that she constructed false memories about beeing able to influence insects during her childhood. It's pretty obvious that it's plain false memories because she said that she didn't remember it until when she was starting to believe she had such power. My bet is that when she started confabulating about having this hability, she started constructing also early false memories in order to back up her clam.

And also when she says she can sometimes have gut feelings, but sometimes also hear the animals in her head. That kind of vivid imaginations, close to an auditory hallucinations, is really typical of an FPP.

Very interresting case study, even if it's not for the claim itself.

[Phronk]

Originally Posted by Venom

I think the good way to investiguate this is to have more studies about fantasy-prone personality. I mean listening to this woman, for me, it was obvious that she has such personality.

For exemple, if you listen attentively to what she said, it's pretty obvious that she constructed false memories about beeing able to influence insects during her childhood. It's pretty obvious that it's plain false memories because she said that she didn't remember it until when she was starting to believe she had such power. My bet is that when she started confabulating about having this hability, she started constructing also early false memories in order to back up her clam.

And also when she says she can sometimes have gut feelings, but sometimes also hear the animals in her head. That kind of vivid imaginations, close to an auditory hallucinations, is really typical of an FPP.

Very interresting case study, even if it's not for the claim itself.

Hey wow, I didn't know we had someone with an advanced degree in clinical psychology and who had actually studied this woman in detail! And you must have known her personally for years in order to come to such detailed conclusions. Maybe if we have any further questions for her, we can just ask Venom.

Because surely you wouldn't just pull a bunch of defamatory psychology-ish sounding stuff out of your butt after hearing a one-hour interview with a person?

(I don't want to be a sarcastic dick here, and I'd probably agree that Venom's explanation is closer to the truth than hers', but jumping to that conclusion on almost no information is the opposite of rational)