Animal Communicator Research (Podcast)

[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 ...

[David Bailey]

I had high hopes at the start of this podcast, but I must say I was rather disappointed. She seemed to spend far too long telling her life history, and not enough on the actual animal communication! For example, if she can really communicate with insects, can she influence which direction they walk in - that would be a magnificent demonstration!

David

[jacob]

I also couldn't understand if she could actually influence animals, i.e. is this a 2-way communication or 1-way.

Also, the limits of the communication is interesting, and more stories that would demonstrate this would also be nice.

I must say I was very skeptical about animal communication but this woman sounds true and I'd like to believe in this.
It would be interesting to see how she fits in in the OpenSourceScience's project.

[Zannek]

I'm a long time listener, first time poster and I have to say...

Alex, either you've finally gone off the deep end or you're about to revolutionise the way we look at biology, parapsychology and consciousness in general. However, the very fact that you've included animal communicators in this experiment is already going to turn 90% of all heads away from the results, and the remaining 10% will be 9% dismissive skeptics, the remaining 1% (myself included) will be willing to look and, who knows, may be convinced.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this will be the paradigm-buster you're looking for. Not of any fault of your own, but simply because not many people will take it seriously.

Nonetheless, I'm very excited about this research and will certainly stay tuned. I can't be sure on what results will yield, but I think you've designed an experiment which is a great improvement on Sheldrake's methods.

Good luck to everyone involved. With a little suspension of disbelief and some real data, maybe we'll scrape that little bit closer to the truth behind the whole matter. Stay skeptical. No matter how convinced anyone is that this phenomena exists, doubt both the proponents and the critics.

Hope I've been of service.

~Zannek

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Zannek

I'm a long time listener, first time poster and I have to say...

Alex, either you've finally gone off the deep end or you're about to revolutionise the way we look at biology, parapsychology and consciousness in general. However, the very fact that you've included animal communicators in this experiment is already going to turn 90% of all heads away from the results, and the remaining 10% will be 9% dismissive skeptics, the remaining 1% (myself included) will be willing to look and, who knows, may be convinced.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this will be the paradigm-buster you're looking for. Not of any fault of your own, but simply because not many people will take it seriously.

Nonetheless, I'm very excited about this research and will certainly stay tuned. I can't be sure on what results will yield, but I think you've designed an experiment which is a great improvement on Sheldrake's methods.

Good luck to everyone involved. With a little suspension of disbelief and some real data, maybe we'll scrape that little bit closer to the truth behind the whole matter. Stay skeptical. No matter how convinced anyone is that this phenomena exists, doubt both the proponents and the critics.

Hope I've been of service.

~Zannek

Thanks for the balanced perspective on things... of course you're right about the skeptical part of animal communicators... it's very hard for most of us to wrap our heads around the how/why/if part of the thing.

It's nice to imagine one experiment might 'revolutionize' some part of science, but that's too much to expect. Sheldrake, Radin and Schwartz (among others) have shown how difficult it is to open a closed mind... closed institutionalized science.

But, I'm very optimistic about the DogsThatKnow.com experiment. After a relatively short search, I've found this phenomena isn't just real, but relatively common.

As far as adding animal communicators to the research design, well this is one way the dominant materialistic paradigm has made our job easier. They don't think ANY kind communcation like this is possible, so if we can demonstrate the phneomena using communicators psychics, shaman, or whatever, we'll have somehting... then we can leave it to future researchers figure out what it is and how it works.

[David Bailey]

Alex,

If something happens to me, I generally consider it commonplace We had a cat that behaved exactly like this. According to Rupert Sheldrake, about 1/3 of cats and 1/2 of dogs show this behaviour.

This is the only real ψ behaviour I have experienced, and was what first drew me to Rupert's work.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Alex,

If something happens to me, I generally consider it commonplace We had a cat that behaved exactly like this. According to Rupert Sheldrake, about 1/3 of cats and 1/2 of dogs show this behaviour.

This is the only real ψ behaviour I have experienced, and was what first drew me to Rupert's work.

David

Yea, I think that's true, David.

Seems to me like it's also a matter of paying attention. I confess to never having been much of a dog person. I like 'em ok, but no special connection. Well, since beginning this research I've paid a lot more attention to Bella, our sweet Golden Retiever. Before, I only noticed Bella hanging out under the counter waiting for the kids to drop some of their breakfast, or begging me for walks on the beach. Now I'm starting to see more.

I even decided to try a quick-and-dirty animal communicaiton experiment with Bella. I was in my office a couple of days ago and Bella was dozing on the floor. Dr. Kim had suggested trying to communicate with dogs by 'sending' them pictures. So, I went upstairs and before flipping on the TiVo sat for a minute visualizing what it would be like to be Bella lying on her cushion next to the television. I was just playing around with it, but, at the same time, I was trying to focus on trying to 'send' this message to Bella. Well, within a few minutes, Bella meanders upstairs, walks over to the cusion, lies down and look right at me. I was stunned.

It's easy to dismiss anedotes like this, but, as many know, the personal experience of it is much harder to let go of. For example, take the cushion where she laid down. She rarely uses that cushion.. maybe once a week... so whay just then?

Is this proof of anything?... no... but, it's sure going to be interesting to see what Skeptics say when we have more video of DogsThatKnow.

[David Bailey]

Yes - I think people with pets are usually looked down on by animal behaviour researchers - but I think we get a lot closer in many ways. 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!

Rupert Sheldrake seems to have an uncanny knack for finding ψ experiments that work really well and are fairly easy to repeat. I think choosing the dogs experiment as a first experiment was a very good choice.

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

David

[Zannek]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

It's nice to imagine one experiment might 'revolutionize' some part of science, but that's too much to expect. Sheldrake, Radin and Schwartz (among others) have shown how difficult it is to open a closed mind... closed institutionalized science.

I hear ya. It's a major shame that it will probably be mostly ignored. Like the near-death experience, in all probability it will be given a slipshod explanation and left alone by the skeptics after that.

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

As far as adding animal communicators to the research design, well this is one way the dominant materialistic paradigm has made our job easier. They don't think ANY kind communcation like this is possible, so if we can demonstrate the phneomena using communicators psychics, shaman, or whatever, we'll have somehting... then we can leave it to future researchers figure out what it is and how it works.

Absolutely. That was the 'wow' factor for me. It's like you've added an entire dimension to the experiment. When I first saw the splash page for this episode, I thought "Yep. He's finally flipped." It wasn't until I listened that I realised just how well this would all tie in together. If this experiment yields results it will certainly prove the existence of psi phenomena to me (this is, of course, assuming that all criticisms raised against it will be addressed). I don't know too much about OpenSourceScience yet, but I'm hoping you can grab the attention of the severe skeptics as well. I agree with Marylin Schlitz that all they can really do is help the process along (except when they then go on broadcasts rallying about how horridly wrong it is and construing the facts a la JREF).

It would be especially interesting to get Richard Wiseman involved since he's been the most major critic of Sheldrake's work.

[Open Mind]

I think the choice of dogs to test psi, is preferable in some ways. They don't get nervous about being tested or worry about failing......... but best of all magician debunkers will be less inclines to imagine hotdog reading or elaborate slight of paw techniques.

If the experimental protocol produces no psi, the debunkers will applaud the excellent protocol and add your results to skeptic dictionaries.

If successful, the skeptics will ignore or demand greater controls. To satisfy this, the dogs will end up blindfolded, wearing earphones with loud white noise, blocked nostrils and placed in an isolated room to walk up to TV screen instead of window. Of course the dog onwer will be replaced for possibly training the dog to cheat and replaced with a stranger. If that doesn't put the dog psi completely off quite enough, medical examinations to look for internal walkie-talkies should work

When the experiment eventually fails, the debunker will finally agree, at last you have a most excellent protocol.

(Hey who said only die-hard skeptics were cynical? Not true! )