GERALD EPLING - Shimmering Leaf Inventor

[bassett]

I apologize, it seems that I accidentally posted the same message twice. So, I have shortened this one.

 

[bassett]

Howdy, basset --

Hello Jackalgirl, it's good to see your note here in the forum.

Thank you for the tip about the slash quote. It makes a nice effect. I will place three of your questions in quotes and then respond to them.

You talk about eggs sensing intent. However, as Marcus points out: "Unfertilized eggs are not alive." Or, at least, there's no chicken in there to do the sensing. What is it in the egg that is doing the sensing? (I ask this because, at some point, I may recommend using something other than an egg.)

There may be a problem with the statement that Marcus made regarding what is and what is not alive. It is true that what exists inside an unfertilized chicken egg is not generally recognized as a chicken. So, there is a mystery here regarding the response. It is a phenomenon of biocommunication. There are techniques to determine exactly what part of the egg is responding to the to the boiling of another egg. Unfortunately, the techniques are relatively expensive to employ, this is one of the things that attracted me to the million dollar challenge.

Plants will respond to people in a variety of situations. During a recent dry period, I began to look for patterns associated with a plant being satisfied with water. I did find a repeatable pattern with a grass-like plant. This information could help people use water to the best advantage in semi-arid regions. There is a room for a lot of research in the field of phenomenal biocommunication.

I did not select a plant study to present to the JREF because there are more variables to account for in a plant study than there are with an egg boiling study. The choice of an egg as suitable material for my response to the JREF challenge was a pragmatic one. The JREF has already accepted my response, and therefore the egg boiling experiment. It is curious to me why Mr. Wagg does not want to include boiling water in an egg boiling experiment.

Also, another point: your equipment seems to work with situations involving water and/or heat. Understand that the folks here are trying to remove humidity from the equation -- it's a control, one that allows you to demonstrate that it isn't the water or heat that your equipment is detecting. Distance, such as you have proposed, is one possible way to do it, but it would be far more effective to crush or cut the egg. I realize that this is messy, but it is rather conclusive insofar as the boiling water is removed entirely from the equation. Cracking the egg open into a bowl might do too, and should not be messy at all (unless, of course, I were to do it. I'm a terrible cook. ; ) ).

The assumption that it would be effective to crush or cut an egg is not in evidence. I presented an egg boiling experiment. The JREF accepted an egg-boiling experiment. Regarding messiness, there are reports in the field of bacteria producing measurable effects at a distance under controlled conditions. A broken egg is a good medium for growing bacteria and other things that might divert our focus from the response being studied. Every variable that is added to the experiment must be controlled. In order to control for bacteria, the egg-smashing chamber would have to be cleaned. If the cleaning agents were not thoroughly rinsed away, then the residue would become a variable. So, smashing eggs is mess in a number of ways. Fortunately, the JREF accepted an egg boiling experiment. So, there is no need to consider egg smashing in connection with the challenge.

Lastly, please help me with some confusion: in your latest message, you mention that a "a physiological amplifier that is capable of showing the signal that drives the human heart" be used. You then say that this device is "not unlike an amplifier that is used to monitor the heart of a patient", and then refer to the latter as an electrocardiograph. Are you actually talking about hooking an electrocardiograph to the egg? If not, is this "psysiological amplifier" another name for your Shimmering Leaf detector?

Great question. The Shimmering Leaf has a physiological amplifier in the front end. The output can be seen in the short video of my first recorded experience with one egg responding to the selection and boiling of another. This video can be found by following the link "sensing intention", which currently appears in the leftmost column of the home page at http://www.arthurepling.com.

There have been some suggestions that the beeping is not as informative as a good digital recording of the event. In response, I decided to employ an earlier version of the Shimmering Leaf, one that had an analog to digital converter on the output. This makes the process more transparent. With this level of transparency, if there is a preference for using equipment designed by someone else then this can be done. I can provide the settings, and work with others to show them one method of connecting electrodes to an egg. The published report regarding which electrodes I found to be most suitable and my technique for connecting the electrodes is available at http://www.mindjava.com. I am referring to the November, 2006 presentation that is listed in the "research" section of the MindJava® website. I think that moving to a graphical representation of the sensed signal is a good move, one that makes the test easier to judge and more informative. I have examples of the chicken egg response and these examples can be visually compared to noise. This would reduce concerns about noise triggering the circuit.

An electrocardiograph could show the effect. There is a lot of electrocardiographic equipment on the market today. In my opinion it is best to use the ecg for people and other patients, who can gain a benefit from the proper use of the proper tool, in this case the ecg.

There are aspects of an ecg that make it really good for monitoring the heart, just as there are aspects of equipment designed for monitoring brain waves that make these products uniquely suited for the application. In my opinion, plants and eggs are best monitored with equipment that features filtering that varies from the optimal settings for an eeg or ecg. This is why I have invented the Shimmering Leaf and other tools that are uniquely suited to the exploration of phenomenal biocommunication.

 

[bassett]

Well, I do hope you get a response Mr Epling as it does seem to be very curious. If this has already been asked then I apologize but how did you stumble upon this supposed phenomenon?

Was it by accident?
Were you searching for something specific?

I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I do believe that on some level all life is connected. If what you say turns out to be true it would also mean having to reconsider what "consciousness" entails.

Well, simply put...if it's true, then it's very big. You'd get a lot of people thinking differently were this the case.

So, if you do feel unappreciated know that there are people who wish you "luck" on this. There are many who would like a new perspective on the study of life in general.

This is a great question. Discussing the research here might be confusing to people just dropping in. I would be more comfortable responding to this question on the message board at http://www.bioexperience.com.

 

[Marcus]

The problem with claiming life, or biological processes, or physiology, for an egg is not just the lack of a chicken, it is the lack of life. You might as well claim physiological processes for a piece of bread or a rock.

 

[Dan O.]

This is what I was trying to get at. While plants communicating in this way seems extremely unlikely, I am willing to accept it as possible, and a good candidate for the challenge. Eggs, on the other hand, are not alive. ... Since the results appear to be the same in both cases, it seems fairly obvious that his results are simply the result of experimental error and do not show what he claims.

Cell phones are not alive yet they appear to communicate with each other quite well. The claim is that eggs (alive or not) have a physical/metaphysical structure that allows them to communicate (or be used for communications). If this communications can be detected as the applicant claims and the know forms of communications can be ruled out then I would be one to admit that this is a paranormal event. At least until we study the phenomenon and find out what it is that science doesn't know yet.

 

[Expression_man]

The problem with claiming life, or biological processes, or physiology, for an egg is not just the lack of a chicken, it is the lack of life. You might as well claim physiological processes for a piece of bread or a rock.

There are too many variables we aren't aware of to claim anything regarding this concept. First impressions and observation wouldn't support the idea of a rock having some form of consciousness. It definitely doesn't have a biological process as we understand it.

We haven't even been able to define consciousness as it stands. So far we've mapped areas of the organic brain based on how it reacts to thought, there's nothing to suggest that it creates thought. Take into account how some clinically dead patients report all manner of strange phenomena during a near death experience (NDE) and what we know is very unclear. Last year was the first international medical conference on the subject of NDEs (June 2006). Some were quoted as saying that the patients were in fact braindead and they were still able to report on what was going on around them as well as events taking place beyond their ordinary sensory perception.

There's too much we don't know regarding the subject. Of course skepticism is required to ascertain some sort of truth but there's only so much one can be skeptical about. There are paranormal phenomena occurring throughout the world, the aim is to find a way of studying them so that they will no longer be misunderstood.

 

[Dan O.]

There are paranormal phenomena occurring throughout the world, the aim is to find a way of studying them so that they will no longer be misunderstood.

That should be "There are claims of paranormal phenomena occurring throughout the world". Just because something is unknown doesn't make it paranormal unless or until the normal causes are ruled out. Still, the unknown and unexplained are worth studying and may lead us to discovering the paranormal. But I'll keep an open mind until the facts are in.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Edit: Until this is over I will exhibit some hesitation in my pursuit of a full english breakfast. ;p

...
At this point in time, Expression_man, will you cease to eat eggs because of Mr. Epling's claims: Yes or no?

No...what are you getting at?

What's the point of all this?

The point was for me to find out if you will base decisions that affect your daily routine on either solid evidence or on belief; in regard to Mr. Epling's yet unproven claim of egg sentience.

(I'd appreciate it, Expression_man, if you would not edit out the name of the posters you quote in your responses.)

 

[Expression_man]

I'd appreciate it, Expression_man, if you would not edit out the name of the posters you quote in your responses

I just copy and paste what people say for the most part. There's nothing to edit out. You want me to put them in? : p

 

[GzuzKryzt]

[/SIZE]

I just copy and paste what people say for the most part. There's nothing to edit out. You want me to put them in? : p

It would add to some transparence in your posts.

 

[Jackalgirl]

Hello Jackalgirl, it's good to see your note here in the forum.

Thank you for the tip about the slash quote. It makes a nice effect. I will place three of your questions in quotes and then respond to them.

Thanks for responding with such detail! : )

There may be a problem with the statement that Marcus made regarding what is and what is not alive. It is true that what exists inside an unfertilized chicken egg is not generally recognized as a chicken. So, there is a mystery here regarding the response. It is a phenomenon of biocommunication. There are techniques to determine exactly what part of the egg is responding to the to the boiling of another egg. Unfortunately, the techniques are relatively expensive to employ, this is one of the things that attracted me to the million dollar challenge.

Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying things that have biological components (such as cells, mitochondria, etc) have a means to communicate with another. Even if they don't come from the same source (e.g., the same chicken). I am not a biologist, so I don't know if this is a valid statement; what I mean is, when an egg is unfertilized, does it "survive"? I mean, do the various components of the egg continue with their own life processes? Or is the whole thing dead and the only process that will be involved is decay? I rather suspect the latter.

I think what Expression_man is suggesting is that there may be a broader definition of "life" -- like the idea of kami (from Shinto, although may other philosophical beliefs share this), that even inanimate objects have spirits. In this case, your experiment would work with rocks. I am totally not wanting to be facitious here, but have you tried your experiment with boiling rocks yet? Example: find two smooth rocks from the same river and see what happens. Is there a positive indication when the "cohort rock" is boiled?

Plants will respond to people in a variety of situations. During a recent dry period, I began to look for patterns associated with a plant being satisfied with water. I did find a repeatable pattern with a grass-like plant. This information could help people use water to the best advantage in semi-arid regions. There is a room for a lot of research in the field of phenomenal biocommunication.

I did not select a plant study to present to the JREF because there are more variables to account for in a plant study than there are with an egg boiling study. The choice of an egg as suitable material for my response to the JREF challenge was a pragmatic one. The JREF has already accepted my response, and therefore the egg boiling experiment. It is curious to me why Mr. Wagg does not want to include boiling water in an egg boiling experiment.

Well, Jeff pretty much gives his reason here:

Ok, I've watched the video. I'm afraid, it doesn't really tell me much. It seems that your device detects boiling water, and it's unclear what role the eggs play in the experiment. How would it have been different if no eggs were included?

The assumption that it would be effective to crush or cut an egg is not in evidence. I presented an egg boiling experiment. The JREF accepted an egg-boiling experiment.

I'm sorry, but this is an incorrect statement. What the JREF accepted was your claim that your device can sense the egg's intentions. They did not accept your experiment in toto; rather, the whole point of protocol negotiation is to work out a protocol that's acceptable to both parties, which is why the negotiation process got stuck on the whole boiling vs. smashing egg argument.

No, I'm not speaking for JREF here, but I have read the thread and I think it's pretty plain what has been going on.

Regarding messiness, there are reports in the field of bacteria producing measurable effects at a distance under controlled conditions. A broken egg is a good medium for growing bacteria and other things that might divert our focus from the response being studied. Every variable that is added to the experiment must be controlled. In order to control for bacteria, the egg-smashing chamber would have to be cleaned. If the cleaning agents were not thoroughly rinsed away, then the residue would become a variable. So, smashing eggs is mess in a number of ways.

Again, how about simply cracking an egg into a bowl? Cooks around the world do this and usually people don't end up dying. Yes, some people do end up with food poisoning, but usually because they haven't washed their hands, or have allowed eggs' outer shells to come into contact with the eggs' insides. Since no one will be eating these eggs, there should be no problem -- and, for added safety, I recommend that the person carrying out the test wash his or her hands in between eggs. You could even use different bowls (aluminum bowls are cheap), so there'd be no cross-contamination between the victim eggs at all.

Also, if your equipment is so sensitive that it will pick up the intentions of, say, bacteria, and throw the experiment results (if that in fact is what you're suggesting), then how are you going to control the experiment for that? In other words, is your workspace completely sterile?

Fortunately, the JREF accepted an egg boiling experiment. So, there is no need to consider egg smashing in connection with the challenge.

Incorrect, as I pointed out above. Please review Jeff's final post in your Challenge thread, in which he indicates why the protocol negotiation is stalled.

An electrocardiograph could show the effect.

I'm still a bit confused as to this whole ECG/Shimmering Leaf issue. But I've come to realize that it doesn't matter. The issue here isn't that your device is or isn't an ECG for plants or eggs, but that the hypothesis of "biocommunication" is demonstrable. I think that this conversation will get pulled into a big, long derail if we start to try to get into the nitty-gritty of how your device works. We should focus on an experiment that rules out alternative explanations (such as, your device is detecting humidity) first, I think.

Seriously, I think you should consider boiling rocks. I'm not teasing or joking here. If you get two egg-shaped, smooth rocks and do everything exactly the same as you did for the eggs and there is no indication, that would be something to really jump all over.

 

[Dan O.]

Even if boiling the egg is accepted, there are still unanswered questions such as "Does a person need to actually think about the egg being boiled?"

Except for the extra cost, this might be setup as a double blind study.

Setup the experiment with 2 eggs (from the same carton), 2 closed pots, 2 burners a timer and a switch in a hidden box. Each pot would be filled with the same quantity of water, an egg would be put in 1 pot and an egg like object would be put in the other pot. The other egg from the pair would be connected to the detector. Each pot would be put separate burners. One burner would be plugged into the timer and the timer set to bring the pot of water to a boil. When the water has cooled and the results recorded, the egg and egg like objects would be removed and the next trial begun.

By separating the choices, nobody would know if the egg was boiled or not until after the result from the detector were recorded.

If it is the bonding of the eggs in the same carton that enables the communications between the eggs it should be possible to run simultaneous trials. Should egg pairs be selected from the same hen or pairs laid at the same time from different hens or is just spending quality time in the same carton enough.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Thank you Jackalgirl for making this clarification. I had wanted to myself but I held back hoping someone could do the job as nicely as you did.

 

[Marcus]

Thanks for responding with such detail! : )



Okay, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying things that have biological components (such as cells, mitochondria, etc) have a means to communicate with another. Even if they don't come from the same source (e.g., the same chicken). I am not a biologist, so I don't know if this is a valid statement; what I mean is, when an egg is unfertilized, does it "survive"? I mean, do the various components of the egg continue with their own life processes? Or is the whole thing dead and the only process that will be involved is decay? I rather suspect the latter.

An egg, like a steak, may contain some living cells but it is not alive because it has ceased to carry out the organized functions that characterize life. Both objects will only decay.

How about putting eggs in a blender? no muss, no fuss, and no one can claim the damage is not as extensive as boiling.

 

[Dan O.]

The problem with claiming life, or biological processes, or physiology, for an egg is not just the lack of a chicken, it is the lack of life. You might as well claim physiological processes for a piece of bread or a rock.

If the unfertilized egg is really as sterile as you suggest then what process is responsible for producing a Century_egg^WP?

 

[Marcus]

A century egg is an egg that has been preserved, usually by a mixture of wood ash,quicklime and salt, perhaps just by an alkaline clay mixture in ancient times. It is a method of food preservation, and does keep food from rotting, much like the salting and smoking that was so prevelent before the advent of refrigeration. Food preserved in this manner, be it meat, fish, or eggs, is not alive. These methods prevent the growth of microorganisms,keeping the food from rotting.

 

[Cuddles]

An egg, like a steak, may contain some living cells but it is not alive because it has ceased to carry out the organized functions that characterize life. Both objects will only decay.

When you say "ceased" what you mean is "never did in the first place". An unfertilised egg was never alive. It will contain various bacteria and other micro-whatsits, but it never even had the potential to turn into a chicken. A steak was once part of a living thing, an egg is simply food for a living thing that will only exist if fertilised.

 

[bassett]

Thanks for responding with such detail! : )

[snip]

Well, Jeff pretty much gives his reason here:

Originally Posted by Jeff Wagg
"Ok, I've watched the video. I'm afraid, it doesn't really tell me much. It seems that your device detects boiling water, and it's unclear what role the eggs play in the experiment. How would it have been different if no eggs were included? "

Originally Posted by bassett
"The assumption that it would be effective to crush or cut an egg is not in evidence. I presented an egg boiling experiment. The JREF accepted an egg-boiling experiment."

I'm sorry, but this is an incorrect statement. What the JREF accepted was your claim that your device can sense the egg's intentions. They did not accept your experiment in toto; rather, the whole point of protocol negotiation is to work out a protocol that's acceptable to both parties, which is why the negotiation process got stuck on the whole boiling vs. smashing egg argument.

I would like to draw your attention to the the basis for the statement by bassett, concerning the acceptance by the JREF of an egg-boiling experiment. The proposal of an egg-boiling experiment appears in the original application that was accepted by the JREF and partially posted in the primary position of the Challenge Response forum thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57370 on the 24th of May 2006, 02:40 PM.

Here is an important part of the original Challenge Response that was accepted by the JREF,

"Question 1: HOW WILL YOU DEMONSTRATE YOUR ABILITY?
Answer 1: I can demonstrate my ability with the use of a special electronic instrument that I have invented, a dozen eggs and a suitable environment and time to boil an egg. The instrument is callled a Shimmering Leaf(TM) Plant Activity Detector. The instrument works well for monitoring a chicken egg.

Qustion 2: UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS WILL THE DEMONSTRATION TAKE PLACE?
Answer 2: I would prefer a quiet residence away from apartment complexes, shopping malls. A nice hotel room with a kitchen might work although a residence is probably better. Around midday I will need to set up my instrument, boil water and drop an egg."

Clearly, the JREF accepted an egg-boiling experiment.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
Clearly, the JREF accepted an egg-boiling experiment.

Provably wrong, bassett. The thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57370

And two important posts, #04 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1730979#post1730979 and #08: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1731282#post1731282

Can you prove your claim with e.g. the hammer or any other device excluding boiling water from the equation?

Or does your insisting on the boiling - which has been rejected by JREF - mean you have abandoned negotiating a Challenge?

(Please pardon the undiplomatic and straightforward attitude of my posts, bassett. We Germans certainly value efficiency.)

 

[bassett]

(Please pardon the undiplomatic and straightforward attitude of my posts, bassett. We Germans certainly value efficiency.)

You have stated that you do not write in any official capacity for the JREF. Where is the leadership on this issue? I understand that it is their way to hold any official incoming communication concerning the challenge until they have a response that ensures a superior position for the JREF. Why have they waited to publish my response from July 11th, 2006? Why do they continue in failing to published my response that is over 8 months old?

There are many great people in Germany today, as there have been in historical eras. I suppose that in the narrow context of my response to the challenge, you have somehow lost focus of the important issues here. Boiling water, dropping an egg in water, these are indications of boiling an egg.

There is clear and outstanding evidence in my initial application that I submitted an egg-boiling response to the challenge. I can understand how the JREF may have subsequently researched the effect and become speechless. So, again I ask. Why did I have to publish my response from July 11th, 2006 here, rather than Mr. Wagg publishing it in the Challenge Response forum?

Entering negotiations concerning how the process will proceed can include a variety of topics. It has been my experience that negotiations may include discussions of the weather, cloud formations or various beverages. Similarly, there was a discussion concerning egg smashing with Mr. Wagg. To me this was a spurious conversation. However, Mr. Wagg indicated a sincere interest in the matter. So, just as I would have entertained a mention of how cold or warm it was outside, I entertained his discussion of smashing eggs. My response to the Challenge was and is about egg boiling. My response to the JREF Challenge was accepted by the JREF. Trying to go back and change that aspect of the process would be like "moving the goal posts" in a soccer match. This is not a good thing. It leads one to seriously doubt the credibility of the JREF in these matters.